Companies Are Recycling Their Old News to Avoid Being Blasted in a Trump Tweet

[GMDino]

(01-19-2017, 01:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh now comparing Pregnancy to a company creating jobs. That's a wonderful analogy.    

Ok, I was in my boss's office before they announced the purchase of another company.  A deal they worked on for two years.  I took credit because they talked to me before the told anyone else.  Better?  

(01-19-2017, 01:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: America was great when we had jobs and companies were re-investing their dollars back into our economy. That didn't happen on Obama's watch, which is why his unemployment rates went up and now we are just back to where it was when he started.  Obama did nothing to stop the flow of jobs leaving. In fact, he told people there was nothing that could be done about it right?

Well, no.  That's wrong.  He and the Democrats tried several times to get job bills passed or bills to get companies back in America.  The G-No-P blocked all of them.  All of them.

(01-19-2017, 01:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Bi-partisanship takes 2 to tango, Obama never showed that he was willing to work with Republicans, you know the "I've got a pen and a phone" method.

Which came after years of Republicans trying to make him a "one term President".  You can try all you want, but the wall won't talk back.  That's what Obama was facing from day one.

(01-19-2017, 01:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Both (Reagan and Obama) inherited an economy suffering from Unemployment and a year of no growth. However, Reagan's had inflation in the double digits and Prime interest rate at 21%. Obama inherited an economy where inflation was dropping (we're reaching a point now where we are considering calling it deflation) and the interest rate was also very low.

Reagan had a Democratic Majority in the House for his entire term and a Republican Majority in Senate until 87, then it was a Democratic Majority for the rest of his term. Somehow he managed to get everyone to the table and it took him the first 2 years to get the Democrats to pass any of his economic plans.

In contrast, Obama started with a Democratic Majority in both the House and Senate. Republicans got the Majority back on the House in 2011 and regained Senate Control in 2015. He had plenty of time to get things done with a Democratic Majority in his first 3 years.

Like I said, it was a different time.  Different economy, different ideas on working with the other side.  Reagan also started the continuing gap between workers and owners.  Along with the destruction of unions.  And many other ideologies that have led to where we are today.

(01-19-2017, 01:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So imagine what Obama could've accomplished in his first 3 years with a Majority in Congress, if he had really wanted to focus on getting the Economy moving?

Well since it wasn't three years...or two....I guess we'll never know?

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destruction/blog-of-mass-destruction-1.298992/when-obama-had-total-control-of-congress-1.332977

Quote:Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).

Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.

But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

"Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.
The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.
Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months.
From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

tl;dr: Obama could get things passed with the GOP for 4 months our of eight years.  The rest of the time they stonewalled everything he tried.

Carry on.