me too...:)

dangerfield

me too...:)

You know how Boehnor feels about chasing that American dream. Please let's not have any expected get-away date for the President before the holidays. I don't want Boehnor to have a "Blue Christmas' without you. Boo hoo hoo, Boo hoo hoo!

Oh my goodness, I hope these guys get time and a half pay or their union stewards are going to go ballistic! I can see it now. Congress on strike for more pay and better benefits.

No Beverly,

He will spend Christmas in Hawaii. Soon as Michelle makes the phone call, he'll just say: "sorry folks, I can't keep my wife waiting, so I'm outta here." Maybe Bill Clinton could sort of fill in for him while he's playing in that warm surf.

The water in Hawaii is not warm.

The water surrounding Hawaii is not warm.

Reason-11551 - If the will of the people were actually considered by either party, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

I have to laugh at anybody who actually thinks either party is there for "we the people".

BOTH parties are wonderful at two things, SPENDING and MAKING LAWS TO HELP OUT THEIR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS. But hey, isn't the second one SPENDING too?

Just think Wizard of Oz when you think of anybody in the government. (Remember the scene where the Great Oz was exposed? No different with the government)

That's it?

That's the best, the ad hoc, session of the professional leftist club, can do?

Boo hoo Boehner?

yeah, no wonder you got your fanny handed to you at the last election.

It is always good to finish the job--especially when you only work 160 plus days a year!

Get as much done as possible because mcconnel and buddies have stated they only want to bring the Admin down and do nothing for the People! On record!

The Democratic Majority in the Senate should announce that they will work together to filibuster until the end of the year. Nothing else will get done, unless the START Treaty is voted upon. No recess will be called, everyone must stay in the capitol building until the START Treaty work is finished. Call the RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans' BLUFF.

No vacation, no Christmas, no New Years, at home. Break out the cots, we're having a 20 day sleep over.

Fat chance...

Democrats can't even agree to support their own President.

Two comments:

1. These clowns won't earn their paychecks until the ALL follow through on a mass suicide pact.

2. I have to laugh at all this "concern" about getting the START treaty approved before the end of the year. If it's so IMPORTANT, why did Barry and the Dems let it expire a year ago??

The new agreement was signed, it needs to be Ratified.

The treaty was still allowed to expire by Barry and the Dems a year ago and there was no treaty in place for months.

Most of them don't earn their paychecks now. Might as well stay through the Christmas holiday to get this resolved. Oh I forgot they vote on what the minority wants. Like taking Christ out of Christmas. So there really isn't a holiday so we don't have to worry about them burning extra hours just business as usual.

Joe,

Actions were started well before the expiration date.

Negotiations started in April 2009, 8 months prior to the expiration – just 2 months after President Obama took office.

The development of the agreement commenced in April 2009 immediately after the meeting between Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama in London in March of 2009.

Preliminary talks were already held in Rome on April 27, 2009.

Further talks were held on:

First round: 19–20 May, Moscow

Second round: 1–3 June, Geneva

Third round: 22–24 June, Geneva

Fourth round: 22–24 July, Geneva

Fifth Round: 5–7 September, Geneva

Sixth round: 21–28 September, Geneva

Seventh round: 19–30 October, Geneva

Eighth round: 9 November, Geneva

On April 8, 2010 in Prague, the treaty was signed by Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama.

So, Joe why didn’t Bush start the discussions instead of letting it all fall on the incoming President (Obama or McCain)?

The treaty was still allowed to expire by Barry and the Dems a year ago and there was no treaty in place for months.

Because even then, Senator Kyl wanted to "read" it first. cough - Obstruction - cough.

Ok the talks started 8 months prior to the expiration, and a new treaty was signed last April. Ir it was so important, then why wasn't it scheduled for a vote or debate until 3 weeks before the congressional recess. Especially when there was other pressing business to attend to like funding the government and deciding the fate of the expiring tax cuts. You can make all the excuses you like but it was a pure political move on the Democrats part to try and stifle the tax cut debate. They figured they could lump all their going away business into an omnibus bill and get it all passed. The only problem was the republicans were ready for that trick and checkmated their move.

Simply untrue. The democrats are happy to vote on each issue separately. The Republicans in the minority in the Senate won't allow that.

Will you stop, for god's sake you people are functionally delusional, seek help sunshine, seek help.

Archangel,

The Republican Senator Jon Kyl has had it on hold.

But read the article linked below for the full picture of what has been going on with this Treaty and a table of all Treaties with Russia.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_05/NewSTART

So let me get this straight, the dems have controlled congress and the the oval office for two years and it is the Republicans fault things didn't get done? Seriously? When are you all going to pull your heads out of your anal cavities and speak the truth... try it once it really isn't all that hard.

You all want to blame the Reps, but come on. You were certainly all for the Dems blocking everything Bush tired, yet wanted to blame Bush for everything. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and you should be blaming the Dems the same way you blamed the Reps.

Admit it, your beloved Dems are screwing this country every bit as bad if not worse then the Reps ever did and still you want to point fingers somewhere, anywhere else. Well you all voted for these morons, so deal with the fact you helped put a bunch of morons in office and got exactly what you voted for!

Give us the list of legislation the dems were able to deny Bush.

The list of legislation that the dems in the house sent to the senate in the last two years is 400+ bills, which the REPUBLICAN minority was allowed to fake filibuster. Thereby stopping these bills from ever coming up for a vote. The 58 majority isn't worth much if 41 of minority band together, as they have, which you then try to deny.

Paul,

How many judge nominations were blocked by your beloved Dems?

How many times did your beloved Dems prevent votes on the floor of the Senate? Remember they had more than 40 votes to fight Bush and did so often and with ravenous hatred.

Your Dems stick together way better than the Reps ever do and have proved it over the years. As a matter of fact one thing I can say about the Dems are they are a very stubborn lot and the tend to hold party line better than a group of Nazis while in front of Hitler. They are good at presenting a united front and that is what got them creamed in the last election. Don't forget, until those who were voted in actually take office, your beloved Dems still hold majority in both the house and senate.

Now stop defecting blame, and deal with the fact your Dems are just as bad, if not worse about screwing up our country.

One last thought, The current speaker of the house is a failure, and she was put right back as leader of the Dems in the house for next session. I'd think you would be pretty pissed about your party being hijacked by such a lunatic.

have a good day, Paul, and get facts about your party correct for both pro and con before tying to make those of us how really do pay attention look bad.

I asked for a list of LEGISLATION. You FAIL.

Your RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans are currently holding up just as many judgeships as the dems delayed for Bush.

Dems disliked Bush because he stole two elections and got 3000 civilians killed by his negligence.

he got 3000 killed? Seriously, Clinton was offered Bin ladin, not Bush. And since you want to blame Bush for the towers, which you clearly do, then you should be blaming Obama for the continuing failure of our economy, I mean Obama has been in office a heck of a lot longer than Bush had been when the towers were hit and it is all Bush's fault, so by this reasoning, Obama must now be at fault for every job that has been lost since he took over office and for every failure not to capture Bin Ladin in the last two years, and the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and the continuing plummeting of the value of housing, and the massive spending that Obama said would help end the recession has only made it worse:

Now since you really want to go down this road about what was blocked by the Dems; how about the whole Social Security thing Bush tired to do.

Oh, and speaking of housing lest we forget about fanny mae and company. Had Bush's attempt to fix it gone through, we wouldn't have the housing mess and the recession wouldn't be nearly as bad.

I can come up with a lot more Paul, but you will simply defelct from the truth just like you and your buddies always do. You can find this in the NY times and several other places if you care to look, but since you won't here you go Paul:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

… Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Bin Laden was not flying the planes. His capture prior to 9/11 would not have stopped Cheney's plans.

Social Security is self funding and running at a surplus.

Fannie & Freddie didn't build the excess housing inventory.

GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY a republican initiative which passed the senate 90-8 caused the economic bubble of false prosperity and the subsequent collapse.

huh: let me see

are you talking about this one:

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton

If so I think you need to look who signed it into law there Paul

Anymore arguments that I can help put holes in?

KyleSH!T4BRAINS: IT passed the SENATE 90 - 8 dumbass! It couldn't be vetoed successfully, that is why I added that point in the previous post. IDIOT.

It was going to become law whether he signed it or not.

Which means a whole lot of Democrates had to have supported it. The senate was not Filibuster proof either at that time, so if the Dems had wanted to block it they could have and they had a president who could have helped by doing a simple veto and then it would have needed a 2/3rds which it did, so there again, the Dems supported it.

Getting hot and bothered under the collar about a bill in 99 is all well and good, but Freddy and Fanny caused the housing market to dry up becusue there was no longer money to buy homes and the fed had to bail both of them out.

That was something your party stopped.

But hey, the Dems didn't block any bills by Bush, oh by the grace of God say it ain't so... isn't that right Paul?

Oh you want more:

Federal Immigration Bill Gets Blocked by Senate

June 8, 2007

Yesterday, the controversial immigration bill proposed by President Bush stalled in the Senate

Oh, yea and please refrain from exploding Paul: but here is another Bush bill blocked by the Dems:

US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Blocked

Leading Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly warned President Bush not to submit the Colombia free trade agreement to Capitol Hill

I can continue the list if you want to play this game.

I have no party.

GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY, a RE-peat-the-LIE-to-the-PUBLIC-an initiative was the economic timebomb which killed everything, including the housing bubble. If you kill the entire economy, of course Fannie and Freddie are going to be left holding the bag.

Nancy Pelosi isn't in the Senate. A bill stalling in the Senate is something quite different from its being FAKE FILIBUSTERD.

How about you give me the list of legislation which was fake filibustered by the Dems instead of the misleading headlines.

Paul,

I feel for you. I really do.

I'd also love to debate you in public.

Your continued use of: RE-peat-the-LIE-to-the-PUBLIC-an is one of the funniest things about you. You constantly bring up me using talking points then you reuse the same old tired line drummed up by a bunch of leftists as an attempt to make the Reps look bad.

Great in theory, but when you go back to it all the time it all but proves you cannot come up with a real argument against those trying to debate you and would prefer insults instead.

I can go down the insult road and make you look just as bad in those kinds of sparing matches as I do with logic and real posts about what is the truth.

You claim not to be a Dem, so be it, I don't buy it, and neither does most of the others who read your posts, but that is what it is.

You want to blame a bill sponsored by three Reps then got overwhelmingly passed by both Dems and Reps and then signed into law by Clinton as a sign of how awful the Reps are. Yet you spout off when Reps block the Dems bills they don't believe in and you refuse to see how often the Dems have done the same to Reps.

Then we can move on to judges. There is something not even you can deny; the Dems killed hundreds of them.

Nancy Pelosi isn't in the Senate. A bill stallingin the Senate is something quite different from its being FAKE FILIBUSTERD.

Here is a prime example of you trying to twist truth to fit what you want others to believe. The very fact it stalled in the senate shows it was killed. This is the same tactics as you now decry the Reps for using.

Filibuster is when members of the Senate get up and talk, and talk and talk. They read out of phone books, they pick up newspapers and read the articles aloud to kill debate until the rest of the Senate finally gives up. It takes 41 Senators to cause a Filibuster because it takes 60 votes to kill debate.

That is a filibuster.

Now, simply because the soon to be former Speaker of the House helped kill a bill, it still died in the Senate, again a fact you can check out if you care to.

So if you want to talk about Filibuster and fake filibuster bring it. You clearly don't know what you are talking about or are trying to hide the truth so you can point fingers without heat coming back your way. That may work when you bully some into closing their mouths, but some of us still stand up for the truth and will take the heat and bullying to get it out there. I am one of those. I am not the average guy who backs down because I believe it is worth fighting for things.

Enough of that for now: We move on. I gave you bills the Dems killed but somehow I am lying. I would highly suggest you look in the mirror and read those talking points back to yourself so you can continue to believe them. Those of us who are willing to do real research and actually have bad things to say about both parties will continue to see your written speech as what it really is. Hate Speech.

You hate the Reps so you will do whatever you can to slander them and make yourself feel better. You hate them with such a passion you have become Nazi like, willing to do almost anything to stop what you see as Rep oppression. Well, I hate to break this to you Paul, but you are the one attempting to oppress the truth and oppress those you don't agree with. You hate and it drips from your words.

I and many like me feel sorry for you. No one should hold that kind of hate.

Yet you will say we are the haters. You really believe we want to crush you and grind you under a boot of Imperialism and fascism. Yet when you look at the facts, we have none of the same need to hate you as you do us. We let you speak and are willing to debate. Most people like me will put up with the heckles and boos thrown our way by those on the far left that will do whatever they think it will take to stop us from speaking because they, and you as well, don't want the truth. You want to hate.

Well once again I feel for you, and should you ever want a face to face debate somewhere, let me know.

I have no interest in suppressing the truth, unlike you. I would welcome the impanelment of a Truth Commission. I could care less how many Democrats were exposed for the grifters that they are.

Can you honestly say the same?

The first thing you would want to do is limit the scope of the investigation into the truth.

Spare me your faux concern.

It does not require 41 senators to begin a filibuster. It takes 41 senators to deny the majority any hope for a successful CLOTURE vote. Each successful cloture vote requires that the Senate waste another 30 hours on "debate". They all are trying to avoid that wasted 30 hours. So they engage in the procedural filibuster, a demonstration of the ability to defeat cloture.

Any questions?

Paul my concern for you is very real.

No one should hold the type of hate you have inside. No good can come from such hatred. Eventually it will leak out and harm another. No one deserves that nor should you or anyone else make your own lives worse by needlessly hating others.

Now lets get back to the business at hand:

Filibusters:

Here, this should help everyone here see what is what:

Last True Filibuster 13 Years Ago

Thursday, May 19, 2005

WASHINGTON — It was a Senate filibuster that did justice to all the celluloid versions and spirited talkathons of bygone years. New York Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (search) chattered, crooned "South of the Border," answered questions from a visiting colleague around 3 a.m., recited names and controlled all Senate business for 15 hours, 14 minutes.

The issue was parochial for the Republican just weeks before a tough re-election contest in a Democratic-leaning state - the fate of a small typewriter company in Cortland, N.Y.

The year was 1992.

George Bush's father was president. Microsoft was shipping Windows 3.1 to computer owners. Johnny Carson hosted his final "Tonight" show. And it was the last time that a senator pulled an all-nighter in the 20th century tradition of Senate filibusters.

"I really wanted to keep going ... and I could have," D'Amato said in an interview 13 years later.

Amid all the current Senate talk of rules changes, judicial nominees and partisan bickering, there is a certain reality that has been evident to historians and congressional watchers: They don't make filibusters like they used to.

A change in Senate procedure in the 1960s and, more recently, the simple threat of a filibuster (search) have turned those marathon sessions into something of a rarity, best known in history books and Hollywood.

"The Senate doesn't really conduct those 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' filibusters," said Senate historian Donald A. Ritchie.

Since 1992, there have been multihour, round-the-clock sessions with several senators taking turns speaking, and two years ago, Sen. Harry Reid (search), D-Nev., spoke for eight and a half hours on the issue that is roiling the Senate today - the right to filibuster a president's judicial nominees.

But the memorable filibusters are a thing of the past, in large part because of former Sen. Mike Mansfield, D-Mont., who after becoming majority leader in 1961 instituted a "two-track system" that would allow time for filibusters as well as work on other legislation.

Spreading the word of a potential filibuster also has proven effective in forcing lawmakers to think twice about talking nonstop.

So, instead of talking about some "fake filibuster" let's admit what is what. It takes 41 senators to kill something in the senate and the Dem are every bit as guilty of it as the Reps. It would be nice to see you deal with the truth instead of trying to make yourself feel better by pointing fingers at thsoe you don't agree with.

The dems are not "every bit as guilty" as the RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans in the abuse of the Fake filibuster/cloture Mansfield exemption. The Repugs have employed it 300 more times.

Do you not understand that 41 Senators being able to prohibit a bill from ever coming up for a vote is undemocratic? A REAL filibuster only DELAYS an eventual vote. Everyone should be cool with that. The fake filibuster Rule 22 Mansfield cloture exemption is unAmerican and IMHO Unconstitutional, because it allows the MINORITY the power to over-rule the majority. If they could only do that for a limited amount of time, say a week, I would be fine with that. The way the Senate "works" now is a scam upon our founding principles.

The dems will attempt to adjust the filibuster rules on the first day back in session and I almost guarantee you that they will mess things up worse.

And spare the world your lame psycho-analysis; you're not good at it. The call for a TRUTH Commission is anything but a call to violence upon anyone.

Paul,

Lame psyo-analysis? Nice big words that once agian mean nothing other than you trying your darnedest to shut off debate and who and what you are. Such tactics do not work with me, and never will. Name calling in whatever form is still just that, name calling. I am simply pointing out, though your own words where your obvious hatred lies. Nothing more nothing less. I am not the one who uses tired old sayings and rant over things both the Dems and Reps do.

On the other hand, I am glad you finally have admitted the Dems are very likly to do their best to block Rep bills in the future. This at least puts on the table the truth of what happens in the Senate.

Undemocratic or not, the Dem used it on Bush often. I have pointed out several times, but yet once again you go on with your RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans tired saying because you have no real arguments. What lies do you refer to when you keep saying that anyway? I am sure there are plenty that have come out of the Reps over the years, but no more than the Dems. Such is the nature of politics.

I gave you the facts, which I bet you already know, about when the last true filibuster happened. Yet you still continue on to try to prove you know better. Why? Why keep up a facade of moral dignity with the Dem when they use the rules just like the Reps do.

Your hatred of the Republicans has pevented you from putting together a well rouned argument, so why don't you just dorp you bias and do a real debate?

let me help:

Here is a good historic time line for how things in the senate works: you will note way back in 1841 the democtates are actaully the ones who blocked a bill to to make things a simple majority and the Senate has never looked back. Once agian, I don't just blame the Dems, but I certainly can point out historical times when the Dems have gone agaist what you, Paul, profess to be good and moral.

so here you go, for all to see a breif history of the filibuster and the Senate voting and debate rules:

The filibuster is a historical method used to delay vote or block debate in the Senate. Some call it unconstitutional, unfair, a historical relic. Others insist that it is a tool that protects the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

By their nature, filibusters elevate visibility of the issue at hand and have, as a by-product, the potential to inspire compromise. A final vote can only be taken if 60 Senators agree; this is called a vote of cloture (vote to end the filibuster).

According to the US Senate website, the word filibuster -- derived from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- was first used more than 150 years ago to describe "efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill."

Rule 22
The filibuster is related to "cloture," a rule adopted almost 100 years ago requiring a two-thirds vote. At times this was two-thirds of those voting; for a limited time, it was two-thirds of membership.

In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to three-fifths (60) of Senate membership. At the same time, they made the filibuster "invisible" by requiring only that 41 Senators state that they intend to filibuster; critics say this makes the modern filibuster "painless."

Historical Timeline

• 1841: Henry Clay "threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate" when Democrats blocked a bank bill.
• 1872: Vice President Colfax ruled that "under the practice of the Senate the presiding officer could not restrain a Senator in remarks which the Senator considers pertinent to the pending issue."
• 1919: First use of Rule 22 when Senate invoked cloture to end debate against the Treaty of Versailles.
• 1935: Huey Long (LA) filibustered for 15 hours and 30 minutes trying, without success, to keep Senatorial oversight of National Recovery Administration's senior employees.
• 1957: Strom Thurmond (SC) set a filibuster record -- 24 hours and 18 minutes -- part of a move that successfully blocked the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
• 1964: Robert Byrd (WVA) filibustered for 14 hours and 13 minutes in an unsuccessful attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• 1968: The Abe Fortas appointment to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was derailed by Republicans through filibuster.
• 2000: Majority Leader Bill First voted against cloture(85-14) on the Richard Paez nomination to the Ninth Circuit; he was confirmed ( 59-39).

Other Procedures of Delay
The filibuster is only one way that Senators can block a vote. For example, the party in power can bottle up a bill or nomination in Committee, thus keeping it from coming to the floor for a vote.

The Senate has a process in place for amending rules; this process requires a two-thirds [67] vote. According to Congressional Quarterly, from 1919-1971, there were nine filibusters relating to Rule 22; in each case, there were insufficient votes to invoke cloture.

In 2005, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to end Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees by something called the "nuclear option." It is actually a series of steps designed to bypass the two-thirds vote requirement to change rules: (cite)

1. The Senate moves to vote on a controversial nominee.
2. At least 41 Senators call for filibuster.
3. The Senate Majority Leader raises a point of order, saying debate has gone on long enough and that a vote must be taken within a certain time frame. (Current Senate rules requires a cloture vote at this point.)
4. The Vice President -- acting as presiding officer -- sustains the point of order.
5. A Democratic Senator appeals the decision.
6. A Republican Senator moves to table the motion on the floor (the appeal).
7. This vote - to table the appeal - is procedural and cannot be subjected to a filibuster; it requires only a majority vote (in case of a tie, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote).
8. With debate ended, the Senate would vote on the issue at hand; this vote requires only a majority of those voting. The filibuster has effectively been closed with a majority vote instead of a three-fifths vote.

You glossed over the changes to rule 22 in 1975. An "invisible" and "painless" filibuster is a FAKE filibuster.

VISIBILITY and PAIN for both sides of the DEBATE during a real filibuster is the point of doing a real filibuster. One side is going to make a move in order to avoid continued pain and visibility. Hence a real filibuster only delays a vote.

The fake filibuster does none of that. The anti-cloture filing of the minority blocks the bill from ever coming up for a vote. 41 Senators can keep 59 senators from ever passing the legislation which the majority supports.

The question still stands: Do you not see the fake filibuster as an undemocratic activity? Minority rules?

Paul,

On this we agree, but the fact remains an old fashioned filibuster is pretty much a dead concept now. You can continue to call it fake, but in reality it is all that is left of a once very proud tradition. the very fact we sill use the electoral college instead of popular vote also disgusts me and prevents this country form being fully democratic.

I would like to see things changed and it sounds like you do to, which is the first time we have agreed on anything of note since I started popping in here.

It is nice to see some kind of common ground.

you got that right, Let them work all the way thru jan 2 2011.

They are pretty slow on the uptake there in congress, and from what I hear the new ones are even worse. I would suggest pushing that to 2012

Their doing nothing doesn't save us any money.

Paul, sure it saves us money, in that they won't be adding more pork to any other bills they might want to try and pass, especially those that will not be continuing in congress next year.

You really should not talk about the republicans like that, it is Christmas season. The republican want to increase the debt, so the rich will get their tax cuts. Which they do not need.

i am woman - taxes are considered revenue, dems shouldn't have put the horse before the cart when they went spend, spend, spend route!

Perhaps the democrats were just stupid and incompetent when they went along with the republicans from 2001 to 2006. Apparently liberals aren't capable of independent thought, must have something to do with that fox and beck thingy that they are always spouting off about. One would think that they would stop listening to it if it makes them rant so.

Yes it does Paul it keeps them from spending any more than necessary which they love to do.

Madison

So all you want for Christmas is deregulation, and poverty for 98% of Americans. Did you tell Santa? Voting for a republican is foolish, unless you are very very wealthy. Because unless you are rich, you will mean nothing to the republican and tea party.

Iam woman - You just don't understand anything do you? (Please note sarcasm)

The 3 G's is why people vote republican, Guns, God, and anti Gay.

It's funny though, none of the above have anything to do with the agenda they push through, but the lies they preach get them votes.

The Dems are no better, both parties are full of poo poo. It's just the Dems might be the lesser of two evils. Sad isn't it, we no longer vote for the best candidate or party, but the lesser of two evils.

We need to COMPLETELY REVERSE that trend in 2011

When will they legislate to CUT SPENDING, REPEAL LAWS and CLOSE AGENCIES?

Back on the cheap wine again, Madison? You're one of those who believed all that campaign sh*t, aren't you? Welcome to the new world. It looks just like the old one and operates the say way, too.

Louisiana Dan

The grown ups have been voted out by a bunch of spoiled, arrogant, stupid morons. What will be in Washington in January will the rich boys idiots. You know the ones that want all the tax cuts for the rich and the richer. And if they do not get it, they will cry and cry like a Boerner.

So, IAMWOMAN,

Nice to hear from someone so openminded. You just called all the Republicans in congress....let's see....spoiled, arrogant, stupid, moroic, and idiots. No wonder the future Speaker of the House is upset about being disrespected. How does your rants and raves fit in with the Newsvine Code of Honor???

I am woman

The grown ups have been voted out by a bunch of spoiled, arrogant, stupid morons.

I suppose you were burning your bra back in the 70's along with all the other women's liberation hippocrits that want everything equal until they are expected to put out the same efforts as their male counter parts. You actually have it reversed though the spoiled children that were throwing tantrums and blaming everyone but themselves for their failures were the ones that were shown the door. Now they are even turning on their President because he compromised on a bill. Yeah I'd say they were real adult about their behavior for the last two years.

Jeesh, what a hangover awaits the T-sippers and their coterie of illusionists. I predict it will take till just about the Easter recess for these idealists to realize that they have been screwed over by the loyal Republicans that have shoved it to every other organization that advocated for them, i.e., Christian Coalition, Silent Majority, etc. Now its the T-party which has already been dismissed as a bunch of sign toting demonstrators. And for those who think new faces in January will change the way things are done in Washington, you should get a Doctorate in naivete'. We as a nation had best hope that no one with the charisma and force of a Hitler emerges in the US ~ Hell, two thirds of the people will buy into his bullsh*t and promote him to the highest office. I can't believe people on both sides of the political spectrum can be so gullible and/or mentally impaired.

Edward

You need to read more and stop watching Fox not true network. The republicans have always left a large debt for the Democrats to take care of. The have never balance a budget or left a surplus. They had pork to every bill, and never worry about paying for it. The only time they have worried about paying for something, is unemployment, which is insurance. The worker and employer paid premiums for it. They used the unemployed to get the tax cuts for the rich. What a terrible group of people! A republican has no morals, they are religioushypocrites and the tea party is just the dregs of the republican party. Read a few history books, you can do it. Enjoy your two years in the house, you will see a landslide for the democrats that had the courage to say no, to the tax cuts for the rich in 2012.

Iam woman, I seem to recall that it was the Republicans with the Congressional majority the last time we had a balanced budget or a surplus. Spin it however you want to though.

Unless we want to give Clinton credit for vetoing their first budget effort. Then the surplus didn't happen at all.

HYPOCRITES, can't have a Republican party without 'em.

Paul, didn't Congress, led by Newt Gingrich, just about shut D.C. down, forcing Clinton to come up with his own version of a budget that was workable (meaning agreed upon by Clinton and Congress). His first few attempts were somewhere in the neighborhood of $600b more than Congress'.

I think he came up with about 5 versions if memory serves. He vetoed Congress' first version because they didn't include enough money for Clintons social agenda.

Sorry but Clinton does not get all the credit for this one.

Yes they both get credit, unless neither of them get credit. You seem to go back and forth if you can't get what you want.

I was responding to Iam woman's rant about the Republicans never balancing a budget. That is all. I agree that both should get credit.

I lean Republican but I liked Clinton. I thought he was a good president toward the end of his second term. It was then that he learned more about governance than dictating.

So all of you wanting more laws, what has any of the current ones done for you?

Do you feel better about yourslef, your country, or your pocketbook?

what law that has been passed in the last 20 years has done the majority of this country any long term good?

Laws have created lazy spoiled citizens that are getting fatter. They have made people more dependant o the government and less dependent on work ethic. They have taking away much of the joy of childhood from our kids while scaring the crap out of them, making them want to spend too much time in front of an x-box and too little time outside playing and staying healthy. We can't let kids get hurt, even playing, thier feeligns are more important than them learning from failure, and by the time the are old enough to take a job, they have no idea how to handle getting yelled at.

Laws have killed much of the average person's ability to start a business and have even crushed the childhood spirit of operation of lemonade stands because we have to worry about health and safety. Let me decide if I want to by a glass of lemonaide from a group of scouts tryng to earn money for a trip. I don't need the Government sticking a nose in where it has no business being.

Every freedom a new law takes away is one less job, one more idea stompped into the dust. Eventually there will be no dreams only laws.

Thre are rights for every half baked nutty cause, which kills the rights of the rest of us.

What happened to the love of freedom in this country? In my opinion it has been put in foreclosure with much of our dreams thanks to the laws many of you proclaim as bringing freedom.

compare the childhood of now to the child hood of even the 70's what child was/is allowed to have more fun? What child had/has a more open mind.

it certainly isn't the children of today:

323232,

This DREAM act is now in the Senate's hands. The Libs have to come up with 60 votes to override a filibuster. Also the clock is running out. Once they go on "recess", the game is over. The new 112th congress will never pass anything like this. I have e-mailed my senator about this chickencrap, have you???

Every notice since Obama took over, we keep having attacks around the Christmas holiday? Last year it was the undie bomber and before that it was the Omibus bill passed in the dark of night on a weekend.

Just let them go home and good riddance to the Dems who are done! LOL!

It's always better when Obama is out of town. He can't do as much damage as when he's in the Oval office.

Edward,

If that were true, you'd think "W" had NOTHING to do with the ditch we were left in late 2008. I mean he DID take more time off than anyone else prior or since,...but alas - NO - the MOBILE unit of the Presidency can actually 'work' from anywhere. So do quit your belly aching.

Wow, it only took 6 minutes for a wing-nut to chime in and prove me right. I am going to start selling tomorrows lottery numbers today.

I am woman

It was a Republican congress that passed the balanced budget legislation and a Democratic one that repealed it. You really should get your facts straight before you make blanket statements.

Republicans haven't blocked a damn thing and you know it. But nice try!

Sorry for your loss - I can tell you're still crying over it.

They fake filibustered 400+ bills which had passed the House.

Why must you lie to try to make your points?

Dems had the power - and still do - to pass anything they want without the Republicans. So why haven't they????? They did it with ObamaScare.

And what the hell is a fake fillibuster? Either you fillibuster or you don't. LOL!

Vote Dem: The FAKE FILIBUSTER is the procedural filibuster. It is a vote, whereby 41 senators can keep a bill from coming up for a passage vote.

The REAL filibuster is something closer to what Bernie Sanders engaged in on Friday. During a real filibuster no other senate business can be done. It forces the Senators to stay in the capitol for quorum votes.

The FAKE Filibuster allows the minority to shelve legislation forever. The real filibuster has never cost the senate more than one week of lost time before a vote on whatever legislation was being held up by the real filibuster. It is an honorable delaying tactic, because it only delays a vote. The fake filibuster is an abomination to democracy and the Republic, because it prohibits a vote on passage from ever taking place.

It is surprising that you visit a political blog and don't know this. Then again..............