Romney, Tax Returns, and the Right to Know

[Cutlass]

Why do you deny this? We've gone over it.
Here's one example... the ACA...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51854.html

And, here you go, ONE day on the calendar.

The 2 independents caucus with the Dems... get over this pointless argument trying to say Obama didn't ever have 60 votes. Jeez.


Yes, we wouldn't want bloggers to post bad things about the president! Might lead to another temper tantrum...

So it happened for exactly one vote. One vote, and only one vote. Can you find a second?

 

[kochman]

So it happened for exactly one vote. One vote, and only one vote. Can you find a second?

Ah, the classic goal post shift! I love it!
I'm sure I could, but that's not playing fair.

That one vote could have been tax code changes... but it was never even brought to an official vote, was it?
Because it is more politically beneficial to have it as an issue... he doesn't really care about it... he wants the votes from it.

He did genuinely care about PPACA... but it appears that the SC will see if his caring was legal or not still.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

and all Republicans voting against...

First two years in a nutshell

PPACA must have been the Death Panel vote? Or was this another one?

 

[Cutlass]

Ah, the classic goal post shift! I love it!
I'm sure I could, but that's not playing fair.

That one vote could have been tax code changes... but it was never even brought to an official vote, was it?
Because it is more politically beneficial to have it as an issue... he doesn't really care about it... he wants the votes from it.

He did genuinely care about PPACA... but it appears that the SC will see if his caring was legal or not still.

You've got a whole huge nation to run and the worst crisis in 70 years and several major bills in the works and only 45 days of maybe, maybe having 60 votes and somehow it's all Obama's fault that not every conceivable thing on the agenda got passed right then and there.

No one in the history of the world has ever been held to the standards you are trying to hold Obama to.

 

[kochman]

First two years in a nutshell

PPACA must have been the Death Panel vote? Or was this another one?

Hahah, yes, that crafty Palin and her pedagoguery failed there!

You've got a whole huge nation to run and the worst crisis in 70 years and several major bills in the works and only 45 days of maybe, maybe having 60 votes and somehow it's all Obama's fault that not every conceivable thing on the agenda got passed right then and there.

I didn't ask about every conceivable thing on the agenda... I thought, based on all his speeches, that this was a major item.
I think many people thought that, since he continues to espouse how it needs to be changed... Heck, he's right. It does need to be fixed...

That might upset some of his largest contributors... tax attorneys...

This isn't to say Romney (or McCain) would have been any better in this case, but they weren't in charge...

No one in the history of the world has ever been held to the standards you are trying to hold Obama to.

Poor Obama, I must be a mean spirited a-hole to not give him more credit... guess there are a lot of it, based on his disapproval ratings. Poor country... we're all doomed.

 

[RobAnybody]

PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against...
So, they had 60 votes during that.

You're right. They had Ted Kennedy's temporary appointed replacement until Scott Brown was elected, so 4 & 1/2 months, not 1 & 1/2 months, fair enough.

But you're counting Joe Lieberman among the Democrats, & he spoke at the Republican National Convention & endorsed John McCain. So even among those 4 & 1/2 months, they'd have to get all 58 Democrats, plus the 2 Independents, including Joe Lieberman, to all agree on something. Which is a great way to address...

The rest of the time, they had 59... meaning, you only had to get ONE person to join you... and only to stop filibusters, which are only a tradition, not a rule...

Yes, you'd need to get 57 Dems & 2 Inds to all agree on something, and then get a Rep to cross the line, just to get an issue to come up for a vote. Not even to approve it, just to let the Senate vote on it. Dems don't tend to operate in lock-step, which is why they fail so often. I agree completely on that issue - it's virtually impossible to get 57 Dems, 2 Inds, & 1 Rep to agree to let something come up for a vote.

There was no real effort to do it, it's better to leave it as an issue so you can manipulate the sheeple.

I wish I'd read your post last-to-first. Anyone who uses the term sheeple is never going to be open to ideas that differ from what they already believe in. Would have saved me a lot of time.

 

[kochman]

But you're counting Joe Lieberman among the Democrats

Who does he caucus with?

I wish I'd read your post last-to-first. Anyone who uses the term sheeple is never going to be open to ideas that differ from what they already believe in. Would have saved me a lot of time.

Sorry to have inconvenienced you so... but what I said is true. All you want to do is make excuses for Obama's failure, instead of admitting he has done a poor job.

 

[Cutlass]

Caucus with does not mean that he can be relied on to vote with. The Democrats are not the Republicans: There is no mandatory party lockstep.

 

[Patroklos]

Tell that to Pelosi.

 

[kochman]

Caucus with does not mean that he can be relied on to vote with. The Democrats are not the Republicans: There is no mandatory party lockstep.

You know this just rings of denial, right?

There is no mandatory party lockstep for any politician, but both sides engage in it.

Come on Cutlass, please be more two sided in your approach. It can't hurt. The extreme reactions on both sides are the major cause of issues in this country, total partisanship...

The point was, you asked for 1 day when Obama had 60 votes... he's clearly had more than 1 day of that... time to back down off the ledge.