Obamacare did not pass the Senate with 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. They called it "budget reconciliation".

This is interesting. I can't verify it, other than his total numbers look good (detailed breakdowns supposedly from CRC). Unfortunately, I haven't seen anyone else dig into the analysis. Very interesting read, though.
http://boogiefinger.blogspot.com/2012/09/senate-democrats-choose-dysfunction_10.html

A little back-up:
http://www.askheritage.org/why-is-the-filibuster-worth-fighting-for/
"So how many times has Reid used this “filling the tree” tactic that is specifically designed to shut out substantive amendments from the minority? According to the Congressional Research Service, Reid employed the procedure a record 44 times, more than the past six Majority Leaders combined.

Can't find other data on the same day closure filings, but if the rest is accurate that probably is, too.

gut;1280289 wrote:Oh, so now we don't pass budgets in election season? What about his first two years? He had 58 votes in his pocket, or should have, it wasn't hard to pass a budget with even a modicum of leadership. They passed Obamacare, but they can't pass a budget? Spare me.

The guy is a failure. Just admit the only reason you're voting for him is because he's willing to spend like 1/10th of what your keynesian models tell you is good for the economy.

And, no, it's simply not hard to find evidence of BO's incompetence. Maybe if he had put 1/10th of the time in his non-stop campaigning on doing the job we wouldn't be in this mess. It's been almost nothing but a 4-yr re-election campaign, and the results show. I had my doubts about Barry, but I was still excited and hopeful I'd be wrong. This isn't about Romney having all the answers, it's BO proving he has none.

1. They did pass a budget in the first two years that passed on Obama's 100th day in office that passed the Senate 53-43. So, your argument that they could pass Obamacare but not a budget is wrong.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/29/politics/main4977653.shtml

As can be seen by 53-43 Senate vote in his first term...he barely had the votes to pass it then because a bunch of democrats like Ben Nelson adhere to the same incorrect views about budgeting in a depressed economy that you do. It is a myth that Obama had "complete control" of the Senate because the Democratic party contains deficit scolds as well.

2. The Senate Failed to pass a budget in the next year over the Bush Tax Cuts because both Republicans and Democrats wanted to wait out the 2010 mid-terms and then McConnell killed an omnibus budget package during the lame duck.

3. And, Like I said, if you have beef with "not passing budgets during election season," that is on the Senate...not BHO. Harry Reid is the one who, multiple times, has not wanted to bring tax raises up for a vote.

4. Eh I guess you're kind of right about me voting for Obama because he's slightly more keynesian. I don't think he's been a great President and I certainly didn't approve of him trying to cut the deficit in a depressed economy but he's done a decent job all things considered in my opinion. I think he's actually been above average on foreign affairs...I certainly don't see the woeful unbearable incompetence that you see.

gut;1280297 wrote:Again, he only has to change TWO votes. And, besides, the "fillibuster" is BS that Harry Reid has been hiding behind to protect his members from even debating potentially sticky issues. The fillibuster has actually not been used nearly as often as the dubious "cloture vote" in this period. What happens is Harry Reid operates on the assumption anything he doesn't like will be fillibustered, and takes a vote to block it. When it doesn't get 60 votes, he kills the bill. He's absolutely abused it to control the agenda, and then blames the Repubs for his actions.

LOL, you are giving republicans too much credit. You're pretending they're reasonable enough to be persuaded. They were throwing out life long conservatives like Bob Bennett and Dick Lugar for even considering it. What is it that you say about the Ron Paul guys? They took the ball and went home...that is the exact behavior of the Republicans in the Senate.

BoatShoes;1280381 wrote:LOL, you are giving republicans too much credit. You're pretending they're reasonable enough to be persuaded. They were throwing out life long conservatives like Bob Bennett and **** Lugar for even considering it. What is it that you say about the Ron Paul guys? They took the ball and went home...that is the exact behavior of the Republicans in the Senate.

No, they didn't. Honestly, a case can be made that Harry Reid and Pelosi have been more obstructive for Obama than the Repubs. The facts just don't support your argument. Reid has used cloture for political purposes and to ram his agenda home, not because Repubs are any more obstructing than Senate minorities of the past.

And my mistake. Obama got one non-binding budget rammed thru. What a stellar record of leadership! Of course, his most recent effort still got ZERO votes, likely a reflection of his declining influence as the shine has worn off his new suit.

gut;1280382 wrote:No, they didn't. Honestly, a case can be made that Harry Reid and Pelosi have been more obstructive for Obama than the Repubs. The facts just don't support your argument. Reid has used cloture for political purposes and to ram his agenda home, not because Repubs are any more obstructing than Senate minorities of the past.

And my mistake. Obama got one non-binding budget rammed thru. What a stellar record of leadership! Of course, his most recent effort still got ZERO votes, likely a reflection of his declining influence as the shine has worn off his new suit.

No, no, no...he used it for rationally pragmatist purposes (something you erroneously have claimed to be)....because he was in the face of Republican children who believed in follies...much like yourself, the WSJ editorial page, deeply partisan leaders of organizations that invest millions in getting republicans elected (i.e. National Federation of Independent Business of which my family's business is a member) and the former head of the European Central Bank. The whole point of cloture is to end a filibuster which is completely unnecessary most of the time! You're blaming Reid for the Republican's being whiny little children. LOL. No other Senate has had to use cloture votes as much because the minority party wasn't hell bent on defeating an imaginary socialist anti-colonialist.

But hey, I suppose a Green Lantern theory of leadership would lead one to the conclusion that it's all about Obama's failure :rolleyes:

LOL.

It will indeed give me some satisfaction that, even without a fiscal stimulus, when the now, nearly inevitable, happens and Obama is re-elected, and the job growth rate follows trend, instead of being considered a failure (as he would be if he was not re-elected), he will surge past JFK and and Eisenhower on that metric for his presidency and be considered an above-average to great president while the Gut's of the world stomp their feet declaring his incompetence LOL.

Again, look at the facts on cloture. It's obvious Reid is using it as a political tool. And, you are wrong that it is only used to break a fillisbuster (SML can call for a cloture vote whenever he wants, actual fillibuster or not, threatened or not, real or imagined). Cloture =/= fillibuster. Unsurprising you don't know this.

So either Reid is pushing an Obama agenda that the Repubs refuse to have rammed down their throats (despite being no more "obstructionist" than past minorities, and the facts suggest actually less....nevermind they were elected in droves to put the brakes on the liberal agenda).

Or Obama has no control over Reid. Either way, it's a gross failure of leadership. Funny thing is, here you are defending him and I don't think you really even support him, you just believe we need to flush even more money down the toilet and Obama is your guy for that.