Here We Go Again

[CJ7]

if you think Im stupid how does that make you look when I cover your crap like a blanket?

[CuteOldGuy]

When it happens, I'll let you know.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CJ7

if you think Im stupid how does that make you look when I cover your crap like a blanket?

You're life is only bearable because you're too stupid to know how stupid you are.

PS
Why would you want to cover crap with a blanket? That would be, well you know... stupid.

[CJ7]

hahahah ... you two leg humping each other is funny ... wheres whirlie the pivot man?

when youre through with the kindergarten doublespeak and deflecting away from your pathetic failure, Im still interested in your explanation about the 110th filibuster records and the dem majority to vote down all those filibusters

either one of you care to show off your self-proclaimed intelligence about that?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CJ7

hahahah ... you two leg humping each other is funny ... wheres whirlie the pivot man?

when youre through with the kindergarten doublespeak and deflecting away from your pathetic failure, Im still interested in your explanation about the 110th filibuster records and the dem majority to vote down all those filibusters

either one of you care to show off your self-proclaimed intelligence about that?

It looks like there were enough Blue Dogs to cross over and take away the Dimos sixty vote majority on some bills, otherwise they would have blocked all the filibusters. Once again, sixty votes blocks a filibuster.

The Dimo's shouldn't complain about obstructionist Republicans. It's not our fault the Dimo's aren't unified. Both sides play hard ball. The Dimo's are just cry babies.

[CJ7]

the 110th senate had 50 dem seats ... and two that caucused with the dems for a 52 seat coilition

[Laz]

Originally Posted by CJ7

the 110th senate had 50 dem seats ... and two that caucused with the dems for a 52 seat coilition

That is not accurate. If that had been the case the few seats the republicans picked up would have put them in the majority. The current Senate has numbers like that. I did not check to see if it is exactly like that.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Laz

That is not accurate. If that had been the case the few seats the republicans picked up would have put them in the majority. The current Senate has numbers like that. I did not check to see if it is exactly like that.

there was 51 ... Johnson had brain surgery and vacated the seat and that made 50

check me out

[Submodo]

Why in the hell would anybody trust any "rating" that Moodys puts out?

The fraud they pulled in the last decade should have resulted in the total shutdown of that bunch and jail time for the head honchos.

You get caught rolling back the odometer on 5 used cars, and transport them across state lines for sale, see if you get to stay in business without fed jail time.

[Guest123018-4]

Dump Reid and Pelosi and see if things dont start ironing themselves out.

[CJ7]

anyway ..


Remember that Minnesota Senatorial election in 2008? The one that pitted former SNL writer/cast member and Air America Radio host Al Franken against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman? That race dragged on forever, resulting in several challenges and recounts until the Minnesota Supreme Court finally concluded on June 30th, 2009, that Franken was indeed the winner. Franken wasn’t sworn into office until July 7th, 2009, a full six months after the 111th Congress had taken charge.
And it wasn’t even that easy. Even had Franken been seated at the beginning of the legislative session, the Democrats still would only have had a 59-41 seat edge. It wasn’t until late April of 2009 that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter defected from the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats. Without Franken, the Dems only had 58 votes.
But even that’s not entirely accurate, and the Dems didn’t have a consistent, reliable 58 votes. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was terminally ill with a brain tumor, and could only muster up the energy to vote on selected legislation. His presence could not be counted on, and thus his vote in the Senate could not be counted on. During the first year of the Obama presidency, due to his illness Kennedy missed 261 out of a possible 270 votes in the Senate, denying the Democrats the 60th vote necessary to break a filibuster. In March of 2009, he stopped voting altogether. It wasn’t until Kennedy passed away in late August, 2009, and an interim successor was named on September 24th, 2009, that the Democrats actually had 60 votes.
And even then the 60 vote supermajority was tenuous at best. At the time, then 91 year old Robert Byrd from West Virginia was in frail health. During the last 6 months of 2009, Byrd missed 128 of a possible 183 votes in the Senate. Byrd passed away on June 28, 2010 at the age of 92.
In all, Democrats had a shaky 60 vote supermajority for all of four months and one week; from the time Kennedy’s interim successor Paul Kirk was sworn in on September 24th until the time Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as Kennedy’s “permanent” replacement after his special election victory over Democratic disappointment, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a state that is heavily Democratic, it seems that Coakley figured she didn’t have to actually campaign for the Senate seat; that Massachusetts voters would automatically elect the Democrat to replace the legendary Kennedy. No way Massachusetts would send a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy. Brown took the election seriously, Coakley did not, and Brown won (he will, however, lose this November to Elizabeth Warren, and all will be right with the world again).
During those four months and one week, Congress was in session for a total of 72 days. So for 72 days the Democrats held a 60 seat, filibuster-proof supermajority in the United States Senate. But wait! There’s more! As Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn points out, even that was unreliable. “Even in this window Obama’s ‘control’ of the Senate was incomplete and highly adulterated due to the balkiness of the so-called Blue Dog conservative and moderate Democratic Senators such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.”
Zorn continues:

The claim that Obama ruled like a monarch over Congress for two years — endlessly intoned as a talking point by Republicans — is more than just a misremembering of recent history or excited overstatement. It’s a lie.
It’s meant to represent that Obama’s had his chance to try out his ideas, and to obscure and deny the relentless GOP obstructionism and Democratic factionalism he’s encountered since Day One.
They seem to figure if they repeat this often enough, you’ll believe it.

Seventy-two days. That’s it. That’s the entirety of absolute Democratic control of the United States Senate in 2009 and 2010. And yet Republicans want America to believe that Obama and the Democrats ruled with a tyrannical zeal to pass every piece of frivolous legislation they could conjure up. They think that the voters are dumb enough to believe it

[Laz]

Sorry, it is the 111th Congress we have been discussing. When Spectre changed parties they had the 60 vote majority.

111th Congress (2009-2011)
Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (41 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat
Total Seats: 100
Note: Senator Arlen Specter was reelected in 2004 as a Republican, and became a Democrat on April 30, 2009. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected in 2006 as an Independent.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by CJ7

anyway ..


Remember that Minnesota Senatorial election in 2008? The one that pitted former SNL writer/cast member and Air America Radio host Al Franken against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman? That race dragged on forever, resulting in several challenges and recounts until the Minnesota Supreme Court finally concluded on June 30th, 2009, that Franken was indeed the winner. Franken wasn’t sworn into office until July 7th, 2009, a full six months after the 111th Congress had taken charge.
And it wasn’t even that easy. Even had Franken been seated at the beginning of the legislative session, the Democrats still would only have had a 59-41 seat edge. It wasn’t until late April of 2009 that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter defected from the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats. Without Franken, the Dems only had 58 votes.
But even that’s not entirely accurate, and the Dems didn’t have a consistent, reliable 58 votes. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was terminally ill with a brain tumor, and could only muster up the energy to vote on selected legislation. His presence could not be counted on, and thus his vote in the Senate could not be counted on. During the first year of the Obama presidency, due to his illness Kennedy missed 261 out of a possible 270 votes in the Senate, denying the Democrats the 60th vote necessary to break a filibuster. In March of 2009, he stopped voting altogether. It wasn’t until Kennedy passed away in late August, 2009, and an interim successor was named on September 24th, 2009, that the Democrats actually had 60 votes.
And even then the 60 vote supermajority was tenuous at best. At the time, then 91 year old Robert Byrd from West Virginia was in frail health. During the last 6 months of 2009, Byrd missed 128 of a possible 183 votes in the Senate. Byrd passed away on June 28, 2010 at the age of 92.
In all, Democrats had a shaky 60 vote supermajority for all of four months and one week; from the time Kennedy’s interim successor Paul Kirk was sworn in on September 24th until the time Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as Kennedy’s “permanent” replacement after his special election victory over Democratic disappointment, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a state that is heavily Democratic, it seems that Coakley figured she didn’t have to actually campaign for the Senate seat; that Massachusetts voters would automatically elect the Democrat to replace the legendary Kennedy. No way Massachusetts would send a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy. Brown took the election seriously, Coakley did not, and Brown won (he will, however, lose this November to Elizabeth Warren, and all will be right with the world again).
During those four months and one week, Congress was in session for a total of 72 days. So for 72 days the Democrats held a 60 seat, filibuster-proof supermajority in the United States Senate. But wait! There’s more! As Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn points out, even that was unreliable. “Even in this window Obama’s ‘control’ of the Senate was incomplete and highly adulterated due to the balkiness of the so-called Blue Dog conservative and moderate Democratic Senators such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.”
Zorn continues:

The claim that Obama ruled like a monarch over Congress for two years — endlessly intoned as a talking point by Republicans — is more than just a misremembering of recent history or excited overstatement. It’s a lie.
It’s meant to represent that Obama’s had his chance to try out his ideas, and to obscure and deny the relentless GOP obstructionism and Democratic factionalism he’s encountered since Day One.
They seem to figure if they repeat this often enough, you’ll believe it.

Seventy-two days. That’s it. That’s the entirety of absolute Democratic control of the United States Senate in 2009 and 2010. And yet Republicans want America to believe that Obama and the Democrats ruled with a tyrannical zeal to pass every piece of frivolous legislation they could conjure up. They think that the voters are dumb enough to believe it

Given all of that you have to wonder why Obama, Reed and Pelosi did not make more of an effort to work with the republicans in crafting legislation that could be more broadly supported. There is no realistic way you can say that every single republican would have opposed them no matter what.

[TexTushHog]

Back to the original question, why would the bond rating of the U.S. really matter? I don't see that anybody that's buying a U.S. bond is really relying on the rating agencies to determine the credit worthiness of our country. I suspect that they have already determined their own opinions about the subject. My guess is that if there is a marginal downgrade it would have no effect whatsoever in interest rates of Federal obligations.

And I'm not sure that sequester is such a bad idea. It's probably the only way that we get two very desirable things done -- 1) cut the ridiculously bloated defense budget; and 2) repeal the Bush tax cuts. Let the automatic cuts come.

[CuteOldGuy]

TTH, we may be dangerously close to agreeing on something here. Just a fair warning.