|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 03:32 AM Original message |
We need 60 votes to do anything, FDR had it easy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Liberty Belle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 04:00 AM Response to Original message |
1. Republicans have gotten worse and more obstructionist. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ChairmanAgnostic (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 07:40 AM Response to Reply #1 |
19. actually, no. They are about the same, if you read |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 03:48 PM Response to Reply #19 |
34. and because times were worse, the '32 election brought major change, no pun intended. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Radical Activist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 04:01 AM Response to Original message |
2. False comparison. There were liberal Republicans in FDR's time. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 04:31 AM Response to Reply #2 |
4. FDR made them Liberal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bornskeptic (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 10:15 AM Response to Reply #4 |
25. George Norris, Robert LaFollette jr, and William Borah were liberals long before FDR's election. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 06:10 AM Response to Reply #2 |
15. Then there was the Southern Veto |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 04:27 AM Response to Original message |
3. FDR was determined to do the right things |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fruittree (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 05:14 AM Response to Reply #3 |
5. As is Barack Obama... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 05:21 AM Response to Reply #5 |
6. We'll have to agree to disagree |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 05:55 AM Response to Reply #6 |
10. lets see what happens, the 2% break is supposed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fruittree (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 06:09 AM Response to Reply #6 |
14. I don't think he is attacking social security.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 08:21 AM Response to Reply #14 |
21. Social Security is in fine shape |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fruittree (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 02:37 PM Response to Reply #21 |
27. To a certain extent it's in fine shape... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 04:37 PM Response to Reply #21 |
38. GDP growth of about 2.6% or better |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 11:28 PM Response to Reply #38 |
51. 3.2% average since 1960 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hawkowl (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 09:33 AM Response to Reply #5 |
23. No they are not |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fruittree (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 02:38 PM Response to Reply #23 |
28. You seem to know Barack Obama better than I do I guess... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hawkowl (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-22-10 01:35 AM Response to Reply #28 |
52. Been watching him since 1992 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fruittree (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-22-10 04:17 AM Response to Reply #52 |
54. You could be right... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hawkowl (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-22-10 04:35 AM Response to Reply #54 |
55. I sincerely hope |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fruittree (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-22-10 06:34 AM Response to Reply #55 |
57. Me too... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cherchez la Femme (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-22-10 03:34 PM Response to Reply #5 |
62. Sure he is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jaxx (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 05:38 AM Response to Original message |
7. Can you imagine Barack Obama getting his cabinet sworn in in one day? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 05:42 AM Response to Reply #7 |
8. FDR used his mandate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jaxx (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 05:49 AM Response to Reply #8 |
9. Yeah and he didn't have a republican wing that voted NO on everything either. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 06:02 AM Response to Reply #9 |
12. not so, we almost didnt get the Wagner Act |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jaxx (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 06:15 AM Response to Reply #12 |
17. My gawd 4-5 years for a law? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 03:42 PM Response to Reply #17 |
32. times are a bit different. yup. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bornskeptic (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 03:39 PM Response to Reply #12 |
30. The Wagner Act passed the Senate 63-12. Only 8 Republicans voted no. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 06:03 AM Response to Reply #9 |
13. Republicans are badly behaved because they're allowed to be. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 06:13 AM Response to Reply #13 |
16. Exactly, FDR swung for the upper deck from the start |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 03:56 PM Response to Reply #16 |
35. Obama's used the bully pulpit quite well, thanks |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 04:38 PM Response to Reply #35 |
39. I'm from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 05:24 PM Response to Reply #39 |
42. Well then. It's all your fault. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
avaistheone1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-22-10 02:08 AM Response to Reply #35 |
53. Got to hand it to George Bush he knew how to handle the bully pulpit. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 05:28 PM Response to Reply #13 |
44. LOL they are not Obama's children |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tritsofme (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 08:05 PM Response to Reply #8 |
48. Much the same Congress? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 05:57 AM Response to Reply #7 |
11. big difference, though we are talking the march |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
quaker bill (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 07:30 AM Response to Original message |
18. True but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 03:46 PM Response to Reply #18 |
33. All I am saying is that FDR did not have a supermajority in the 73rd Congress |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bornskeptic (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 04:20 PM Response to Reply #33 |
37. He didn't need a super-majority. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 04:41 PM Response to Reply #37 |
40. understood, but so many folks have been telling thats what he had |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 07:45 AM Response to Original message |
20. Deleted message |
ladjf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 09:26 AM Response to Original message |
22. Either change the Senate rules or abolish the Senate. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pinto (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 09:48 AM Response to Original message |
24. Cloture requires 3/5. In the 73rd Congress that would be 57 Senators. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 03:41 PM Response to Reply #24 |
31. it was 2/3rds until the mid 1970's |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
krawhitham (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-22-10 04:28 PM Response to Reply #31 |
63. Something is wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 10:16 AM Response to Original message |
26. Easy? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
namahage (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 02:40 PM Response to Reply #26 |
29. Are you sure you read the OP? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
creon (723 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 04:17 PM Response to Original message |
36. Huge majorities |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FogerRox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 04:43 PM Response to Reply #36 |
41. The Senate in the 73rd is not too far from what we have today |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
creon (723 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 07:25 PM Response to Reply #41 |
47. True. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 05:26 PM Response to Original message |
43. Republicans were reasonable then |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JoePhilly (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 05:51 PM Response to Reply #43 |
45. Bingo. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JoePhilly (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 05:53 PM Response to Original message |
46. Did the liberal blogs rip FDR a new ASS for any compromise??? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC Liberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 08:07 PM Response to Original message |
49. From 1933 to 1935 there were ZERO - ZERO - cloture votes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-21-10 11:24 PM Response to Reply #49 |
50. So what. Most of the issues "we couldn't get through the Senate" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC Liberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-22-10 06:25 AM Response to Reply #50 |
56. So, the OP's claim that FDR was dealing with the same political environment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-22-10 09:36 AM Response to Reply #56 |
61. You're still talking about votes when the pieces were already long bartered away |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bornskeptic (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-22-10 09:34 AM Response to Reply #49 |
60. None of the four cloture votes during his presidency were on bills supported by FDR. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BklnDem75 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-22-10 07:49 AM Response to Original message |
58. False |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
harun (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-22-10 09:04 AM Response to Original message |
59. We didn't have a Corporate Media back then. Also the GOP |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:41 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC