There Was No Democratic Super Majority in 2009 through 2010!

The Myth of the Democratic Super-Majority

Whenever someone mentions the constant obstruction, filibustering, and threats to filibuster in the Senate from 2009 until now, people of a Republican slant are bound to claim, "Why didn't the Democrats do all of this during 2009-2010 when they had a majority in both houses, including a super majority in the Senate?"

Well, that's simply not true.

First with the constant threats to filibuster, the Democrats needed a super majority in the Senate (60 votes) to pass most bills, as the Republicans were intent on shutting things down.

So.. How long did Obama and the Democrats have a super-majority in the Senate?

The Democrats had a kind of super-majority for all of four months, from September 24, 2009, until February 4, 2010... but that was ONLY if the Blue Dog Democrats and the two independents all voted as a block.  And that was only about 24 Congressional working days. Also, the Blue Dogs are simply not an easy bunch to deal with; negotiations and deals needed to be made to get that 60 vote block to vote as one..  What made it past the Senate during those four months?  The Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCares.

Update October 24, 2012:

From the EverlastingGOPStoppers on Facebook

Found here, more about that non-existing Super-Majority:

Here's the timeline of that Super-majority:

• Al Franken represented the 60th Democratic vote and he did not take his seat until July 2009 due to challenges and recounts.
• By that time, Ted Kennedy was too sick to attend the Senate.
• Ted Kennedy died in August 2009.
• Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts, appointed an interim senator who would only serve until whoever was elected in the Massachusetts special election would be seated. The interim senator, Paul Kirk, was a Democrat, and he was sworn into office September 25, 2009. At this point, the Democrats had a super-majority.. but ONLY if the two independents and all of the Blue Dog Democrats voted as a block.
• The special election to fill Kennedy's seat was held in mid-January 2010, and resulted in the election of Republican Scott Brown. Brown was sworn into office February 4, 2010, after which time the Democrats no longer had a super-majority. 

A comment by "Ray" on the same topic:

So why didn't they have a jobs bill during Obama's first year they had a super majority in both houses and the White house yet they didn't even try to put together a jobs bill and now they want you to believe that they would. They didn't care the first 2 years but vote for them now and they will care. Don't you get tired of being lied to and insulted by them thinking you are so stupid you will believe any garbage they feed you??"

My reply:  

• The stimulus WAS in large part a jobs bill. Every major group (in particular, the CBO) that has looked at the stimulus (ARRA) believes it added or saved 2.5 to 3.5 million jobs, in addition to providing the country with significantly improved roads, bridges, and school buildings. 
• There was a Super-majority in the Senate for all of four months, and that was ONLY if the Blue Dog Dems and the Independents voted with the regular Dems as a block. The need to accommodate the Blue Dog Dems pulled legislation that was passed to the right. 
• Why only four months? See above. 
• "Being lied to and insulted"?  Anybody who is concerned about being lied to only needs to check out Factcheck.org or any of the other fact checking news sites.  Anybody who is concerned about being insulted only needs to listen to the Romney Tapes. Why isn't that obvious to you? What's wrong with your thinking?

You can talk facts to some of these people for years, and they still won't get it.  But they each get one vote, the same one vote that I get or that you get.

Mitt Made His Money the "Old Fashioned Way"

On the Backs of the Chinese Working Like Slaves...

(I had included this Monday on my "Romney is Toast" post, but as Romney's comments about Chinese workers are only now starting to get some press, I felt that these words needed their own space.)

Here's the Clip About the Chinese Workers:

 

Let's juxtapose these two comments from the clips:  

• Romney claims that he and his wife gave all of their inheritance from their wealthy parents away.  So, therefore, they earned their money "the old fashioned way", meaning that they earned it.
• He talks about his visit to a manufacturing plant in China in which Bain was investing.  He mentions the deplorable working conditions of the thousands of young women who work there, working for a pittance, working long hours, living in dormitories ten or twelve to a room.  He doesn't mention that perhaps this is something that might be improved when Bain comes to town; he talks about how wonderful America is compared to the conditions of these young people in China.  (The link in this paragraph leads to an article in Mother Jones magazine about Bain's investments in China.  Written by David Corn, the same reporter who brought the hour long Romney video to light.)

Putting this together:

Mitt and his fellow partners at Bain made their money on the backs of workers who are underpaid, living poverty-level lives of despair, such as these young women in China.  Or on the backs of middle-class American workers whose companies Bain bankrupted, often laying off these long-time workers, many of whom later found themselves in deep financial distress.  

What are some of those "Old Fashioned" ways by which people used to "earn" their money?

Well, slave owners "EARNED" their money "the old fashioned way" back in the 18th and early 19th centuries, on the backs of slaves whose ancestors were brought over from Africa.  This was similar to the "old fashioned" way that industrialists and "captains of industry" "EARNED" their money when they put millions of immigrants and rural migrants to work for peanuts in dangerous, miserable factories, stock yards, and construction sites.  

Let's not forget why we don't have those conditions now in this country:

• Unions.
• Muckraking journalists.  
• Reformers and political activists.  
• Politicians who supported regulations and worker's health and safety laws.

And finally we can't forget: 

If  the Republican rich guys that Mitt was talking to had their way, the conditions for workers in this country would be just as bad as the conditions of those workers in China.  (In fact, whenever they can get away with it, they will put people to work in less-than-acceptable conditions right now in this country.)  

If you believe that Mitt et al would never do this, I have a bridge... price reduced; going cheap.

Don't forget what kind of conditions Mitt seems to tacitly accept for the Chinese:

• Chinese Suicide Sweatshop IPod Workers
• Chinese Workers Building the Oakland Bay Bridge

Romney Is Toast.

"Victims who take no personal responsibility".

Forty-seven percent (47%) of the people in this country are "victims" who not only don't pay taxes but "don't take personal responsibility or care for their lives" according to Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

These comments were made by Romney and surreptitiously recorded at a private fundraiser a few months back.  It shows what he thinks of the American people, particularly those who are struggling.

If you haven't had to pay federal income taxes because you are old, disabled, or you earn too little to pay federal income taxes, Romney sees you as "someone who doesn't take personal responsibility or care for your life"--- even if you work a low wage job forty hours a week.  (Ezra Klein has a good analysis of this whole "47% pay no taxes" issue HERE.)

All of you formerly middle class people who are trying to live on unemployment insurance, perhaps taking food stamps because you earn so little in your new job, or who are stuck applying for early social security just so you can have a few bucks, Romney also doesn't care about you and also says that "you are someone who doesn't take personal responsibility or care for your life".  Even if you worked decades before everything fell apart.  Nice to know what he thinks about you before you consider voting for the guy.

From Rude and Rotten Republicans on Facebook

Mitt Made His Money the "Old Fashioned Way":

If that's not bad enough, juxtapose these two comments from the clips:  

• He talks about his visit to a manufacturing plant in China in which Bain was investing.  He mentions the deplorable working conditions of the thousands of young women who work there, working for a "pittance", working long hours, living in dormitories ten or twelve to a room.  He doesn't mention that perhaps this is something that might be improved when Bain comes to town; he talks about how wonderful America is compared to the conditions of these young people in China.

• Romney claims that he and his wife gave all of their inheritance from their wealthy parents away.  So, therefore, they earned their money "the old fashioned way", meaning that they earned it.

Let's put this together:

Mitt and his fellow partners at Bain made their money on the backs of workers who are underpaid living poverty-level lives of despair, such as these young women in China.  Or on the backs of workers whose companies Bain bankrupted.  

What are some of those "Old Fashioned" ways by which people used to make their money?


This is the same "old fashioned" way that slave owners earned their money back in the 18th and early 19th centuries.  The same "old fashioned" way that industrialists and "captains of industry" earned their money when they put millions of immigrants to work for peanuts in dangerous, miserable factories, stock yards, and construction sites.  

Let's not forget why we don't have those conditions now in this country:  Unions.  Muckraking journalists.  Reformers and political activists.  Politicians who supported regulations and worker's health and safety laws.

And finally let's not forget this:

If  the Republican rich guys that Mitt was talking to had their way, the conditions for workers in this country would be just as bad as the conditions of those workers in China.  (In fact, whenever they can get away with it, they will put people to work in less-than-acceptable conditions right now in this country.)  If you believe that Mitt et al would never do this, I have a bridge... price reduced; going cheap.

Damage Control

Now Mitt's handlers are trying to do damage control:  "Mitt Romney's plan creates 12 million new jobs in four years, grows the economy and moves Americans off of government dependency and into jobs."

What plan?  Tax cuts for these rich donors?  Less regulations so that these rich donors will hire more people.. and put them to work in the lousiest conditions possible?  Do these repulsive Republicans actually think that people who CAN work want to be on "government dependency"? 

So what is it, Mitt?  Do you really care two bits about these people who are stuck in government dependency right now?  You just insinuated that they were losers devoid of personal responsibility or care for themselves.       

The Republicans have been obstructing Obama and the Democrats all along in this recovery, and then Romney complains that people who haven't yet managed to recover in this economy are people who "don't take personal responsibility or care for their lives"?  And he's going to magically fix things for them?  Repulsive, completely and utterly repulsive.

Come on, Americans!  It's time to put the kabosh on these Republicans once and for all!    

What's the Romney/Republican Tax Plan?

Turmoil in Romney's Campaign?

The Washington Post posted an article this morning that seems to indicate much turmoil in Mitt Romney's Presidential campaign.  The article makes a few good points:  When a campaign is losing ground, reports of turmoil often pop up.  If Romney's numbers start to go back up, the reports of turmoil will go away.  Sure enough, Romney's numbers at Gallup have come up two points as the post-convention Obama bounce winds down, but starts to wind down.  But right now, today, reports of turmoil are in the press.  

The Washington Post article talks about "messaging" but perhaps the problem is that the Romney/Ryan/Republican campaign really doesn't have a message that resonates with a majority of the people, particularly the "middle class"? 

What does Romney have to offer the American "middle class"? 

How can someone who has no idea what it means to be "middle class" personally -- and seems to have no ability to empathize with the "middle class"-- have a message that will resound with that struggling middle class?  

More and more people are starting to see the Republicans as obstructionists that have kept the recovery from truly taking off...  They cared more about getting the guy in the White House out of office than they did about co-operating to end the misery and suffering of the American people.

What could the Romney/Ryan/Republican message be?  Tax cuts for the rich and more taxes for the middle class?  Fewer regulations?  Get rid of ObamaCares which more and more people support?  Voucherize Medicare which 65 to 80% of the people DO NOT support?   

In the comments, someone asked:

 We really don't need to know the details of the Romney tax plan. What is the Norquist plan? 

A good reply on Republicans and taxes, from "reussere": 

Norquist never actually had a actual plan for governing or economics. He plan is a political strategy only, that Republicans should always stand for lower taxes, no matter what tax levels are, because as a branding mechanism, it makes Republicans appear consistent. 

Unfortunately as a governing philosophy or policy it is completely unsustainable. If Republicans always want to lower taxes, then they cannot be satisfied until tax rates are zero. Then where would they go? Meanwhile, constantly lowering taxes below the rates required for governing leads to unsustainable deficits. 

Republicans at this time are in the same position as drug addicts. They must have more tax cuts to be able to justify their existence, but cannot ever place a floor beyond which they refuse to cut. The real solution is to become more honest and start advocating balanced solutions, but that requires an open break from their pledges, muddies their brand, and causes a short term loss in political position, like the withdrawal of a drug addict from his drugs. 

For Republican's to survive, a break from the Norquist brand politics must happen. It is preordained. The longer they wait to do it, the more damage they will take. This is primarily why they are currently doing so poorly in an election they could have easily won with more sustainable and responsible policies.

And the final comment from "TomR3":

 The Norquist/Romney/Ryan Plan: "Choose richer parents next time."

Democrats believe that we need a reasonable level of taxes to support government programs that we all need; programs that will make this a stronger country and keep our deficit down to reasonable levels.   Republicans under Norquist believe that taxes are simply "stealing from my pocket" and are not necessary to govern--- seemingly ever.

Romney Will Protect Our Embassies?

Here's a good post with interesting commentary at Politico.

Mitt Romney's foreign policy team is claiming that the current Mideast uprisings wouldn't be happening if Romney were President.  Apparently they are going to pursue this theme tonight in interviews with the Washington Post.

Romney foreign policy adviser Richard Williamson claims that:

If you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation. For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.  In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations — the respect for America has gone down, there’s not a sense of American resolve and we can’t even protect sovereign American property.

Well, Mr. Williamson, are we forgetting how well we protected "sovereign American property" during the Bush years.  Romney really thinks he'd stop this?  Gimme a break.  

(The following list has been reproduced all over the Internet in the last two days.  I'm not sure of its origin.  I will include links as I find them.)

• June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51. 

• February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  Truck bomb kills 17.
• February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan.  Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards. 
• July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan.  Suicide bomber kills two.
• December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.  Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded. 
• March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan.  Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants. 
• September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria. Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
• January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece.  A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured. 
• July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.  Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed. 
• March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen.  Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead. 
• September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen.  Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

What's wrong with this man Romney?  He avoided the draft (even though he demonstrated in support of it), but now he thinks he would be the tough guy (as if that is a good thing) in terms of foreign policy?  He has absolutely NO experience in foreign policy?  Well, he's got those guys from the Bush administration to help him.  I guess they know something!

Oh yeah.. And maybe.. just maybe... he can see Russia from his California mansion.... from the top of the car elevator?

Update October 22, 2012: 

Commentary and links about the above graph can be found HERE.

Better Off than Four Years Ago?

Are you better off than you were four years ago?

From FB friend Leslie C in answer to the question about whether or not you are better off than you were in January 2009:|

Four years ago we were losing 750k jobs a month.

Now we're not.

We had 2 wars going.

Now we don't.

We didn't know where Bin Laden was.

Now we do.

Health insurance rates were growing at a blistering pace.

Now they're not.

Health insurance was not available to people with pre-existing conditions.

Now it is.  

 

The DOW was at 6000. 

Now it's at 13,000.

Four years ago, our economy was contracting. 

Now it's not.

Our manufacturing sector was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a year. 

Now it's not. 

Are you better off now?

You're damned right you are."

A few more thoughts when people complain about Obama:

This is a president who:

• Passed a health-care reform breakthrough 100 years in the making. 
• He also imposed the most sweeping Wall Street reforms since the Great Depression.
• Obama also rescued the economy from collapse, 
• He rescued the American auto industry, 
• He ended the war in Iraq, decimated al Qaeda and killed bin Laden, 
• He reformed the student loan system, 
• He ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," 
• He vastly improved fuel efficiency standards, 
• He helped topple the Gaddafi regime, 
• He negotiated the New START treaty,
• He improved food safety protections, 
• He cracked down on credit card company abuses,
• He expanded stem-cell research, 
• He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Republicans disapprove of these measures, as is their right. But to say the president "has no record to run on" is kind of silly, even by Paul Ryan standards."

Remember When Teachers Crashed the Stock Market?

Who crashed the stock market?

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood­, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bail outs, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, I don't remember any of that either.

Pass it on!

(Copied from Molly's Middle America.)