Imagine what we could have accomplished with full control of Senate/House

[srican69]

1) Flaws in ACA would have been ironed out
2) Immigration reform with PTC
3) Carbon Tax/Cap n Trade
4) Jobs Bill/ Reinvestment in American Infrastructure




Heck maybe we even could have had regular Tax Rate for Hedge fund Managers ( How on earth do they get to pay cap gains rate for pretty much what is their Salary???? This is such a travesty of justice)


So VOTE and get other DEMS to Vote ... We have so much to be angry about .. I can't figure out the reason for the supposed apathy among Democratic Voter ....

[treestar]

1. Exactly - some people need to get a little more

zeal in opposing Republicans, not fellow Dems.

[Katashi_itto]

8. It's sport to attack fellow Dems. Then they wonder why the apathy.

[treestar]

18. No, this is how it works

We are on DU. Suddenly we see people attacking Dems as not good enough. We push back on that and we get called cheerleader, etc.

Apathetic people deserve, well, nothing. Do they want us to beg for their vote? If they let Republicans win due to apathy, they deserve Republicans. What is the point of courting people who will never be satisfied and look upon the party as their servant (as opposed to something they are part of).

[Katashi_itto]

20. Apathetic people become that way for a reason.

[treestar]

22. It's their own problem

If they don't care enough, why is it anyone's problem? They won't care no matter how much cajoling they get. They will be too easy to lose. All of this is convincing me these aren't people we need to court. Who wants to be called inadequate all the time and judged negatively so easily? People will give up.

And the apathetic will have no say. They can rant about corporations and conspiracies and get nowhere.

[Katashi_itto]

45. Lol! The end result is your problem.

[yeoman6987]

52. We had that

From 2008-2010 we had a super majority of the Senate and a good majority of the House with a Democratic President. I don't know why we didn't get more of what we wanted but I have a feeling it was the DINOs. Truly to have a good possible progressive agenda and have it, we need about 70 Democratic Senators and 320 House Democrats and then maybe we can drown out the DINOs. A shame isn't it?

[Glitterati]

2. Do you understand that most people vote FOR

someone/something and not against?

This kind of campaign is worthless for turning folks out. Democrats cannot win with a campaign on "the big, bad republicans" as the basis for GOTV.

This is exactly the kind of campaign that makes people say "they're all alike" and just stay the hell home.

[Demo_Chris]

3. Obama was elected with a majority in the House and a super in the Senate...

They didn't even TRY to do anything with it. The dialog was exactly what we hear today. It was, "Yeah, sorry, still not enough. All we can do is whatever UnitedHealth and Goldman and Exxon and Monsanto and Lockheed tell us. Maybe if you give us just s few more seats we'll try to do some of the things we promised, but until then we can only do the opposite."

And when 2010 rolled around and the moderate and liberal voters they had just fucked over stayed home, their excuse was to blame voter apathy on so-called purists. The same thing they are doing today. I am a purist in this sense: if you want MY vote earn it.

[NV Whino]

6. Beat me to it

It's okay to try the bipartisan, hands across the aisle bullshit for a few months, but six years later they're still trying it and crying (for more donations) because they can't get anything done.

Color me pissed off.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. One qualifier

Liberals did show up in 2010. They always do. It is the moderate and decline to state voters which are the other two legs that staid home.

And from what I hear, they are not too happy this time around either.

Liberals will show up, hold their noses, and vote.

[840high]

30. ...^ that

[kelliekat44]

31. There other economic issues that incoming President Obama had to confront and he handled it!

With looming economic catastrophe he faced and the GOP gunning for him from day one...what did you realistically expect? Only 100% for a purist earns a vote? What a shame. Really? And of course, we all know the President should be able to accomplish everything by himself.

[Recursion]

42. Are you crazy? The 111th Congress was one of the most active in history

Lilly Ledbetter
SCHIP
ARRA (the stimulus)
The last budget Congress has passed
The Americorps expansion
FERA
HFSHA (what lets judges write down mortgages predatory mortgages rather than foreclosing)
Cash for Clunkers and the Big 3 bailout
ACA
VA and Tricare reform
Dodd-Frank
Unemployment extension
9/11 responders relief
Iraq local employees emergency visas
The fair sentencing act

What color is the sky in your world if you think they "didn't even try to do anything with it?"

[DanTex]

47. +1. Exactly.

[Springslips]

51. Awesome!

It is a sad but true fact that there is a part of liberalism that are also NOT part of the reality based community.

[Historic NY]

4. Perhaps you should change the title to what won't happen...

if they gain control of the Senate. The main goal of the GOP is to undo what the administration has accomplished and again tax cuts for the rich, which mean cutting more from social programs.

[mwrguy]

5. We had it and didn't use it

We had a perfect window of opportunity.

At least we got the ACA, but we should have rammed through things like immigration reform and gun control before we lost control.

[Historic NY]

11. Not enough time 72 days...

with the death of Kennedy, defection of Spector,and hold up of Franken, crazy special elections for Senate seats they were lucky to pass ACA on Christmas 2009 60-39, before Brown took office.

[polichick]

13. imo it became clear to many that Dem leaders didn't really have...

the same agenda as the people who elected them.

[treestar]

19. So we don't deserve to ever get it back again?

Geez, Republicans don't do that to their congresses.

Punishing Democrats for not doing enough in one Congress is not working.

[kelliekat44]

32. You were never going to "ram through" gun control reform...no matter what. What planet do you folks

live on?

[SomethingFishy]

50. Gee, I live on the planet where a majority of Americans support gun control

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Which planet do you live on?

[Recursion]

43. OFFS. This place is going off the rails

Lilly Ledbetter
SCHIP
ARRA (the stimulus)
The last budget Congress has passed
The Americorps expansion
FERA
HFSHA (what lets judges write down mortgages predatory mortgages rather than foreclosing)
Cash for Clunkers and the Big 3 bailout
ACA
VA and Tricare reform
Dodd-Frank
Unemployment extension
9/11 responders relief
Iraq local employees emergency visas
The fair sentencing act

Were you asleep between January 2009 and January 2011? This isn't "nothing". WTF does it take to get you to notice things?

[leftstreet]

7. What 'flaws' do you see in the ACA?

[srican69]

9. let me guess ...

you have coverage through your employer.

[leftstreet]

12. You said flaws

Just wondered what you consider flaws

[MineralMan]

14. And imagine what we can STILL accomplish if

we regain that control in 2014.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[PeteSelman]

15. You mean like what we had for a year or so in 2009-10?

And all "we" did was bend over backward to include the Republicans who then refused to vote for their own proposals. Yeah, it sure made a huge difference. It was their refusal to actually do what they were voted in to do that cost them the house in the 2010 elections.

Even when we win, we lose. But that's no reason not to try again, I guess.

[JoePhilly]

24. it was actually about 70 days total.

When was Franken seated?
When did Kennedy die?
When was he replaced temporarily?
When was Scott Brown seated?

The reality is we had about 70 days, fewer if you only count days the Senate was actually in session.

[liberal_at_heart]

27. That should have been plenty of time and the fact that they are not in session so often is part of

the problem. That time off is suppose to be so they can listen to their constituency but they don't even do that. They listen to big money, not to their constituency.

[JoePhilly]

28. plenty of time??

Ok.

[liberal_at_heart]

29. The reason government takes time is because of the checks and balances of the two parties.

If one party has the majority, it shouldn't take that long. Republicans don't waste chances like that. Why do the democrats?

[JoePhilly]

33. I guess the GOP privitized Social Security when they controlled all 3

Branches of government for 7 years.

Right?

70 days, with 6 blue dogs, isn't enough time to get rid of insurance companies.

Talk about unicorns.

[liberal_at_heart]

36. whatever. Republicans have done plenty of damage when they have the majority.

Democrats need to stop making excuses and come up with some concrete results. At the very least put up a fight. Democrats usually don't even do that. No, I'm tired of excuses. It's just not good enough for me anymore.

[JoePhilly]

38. The ACA will save my niece's life.

UE down to 6.6 from 10.2.
Iraq war ended.

Pretty good in my mind.

[PeteSelman]

40. There might have been 70 days in between Franken's seating and Teddy's death.

But Kennedy's replacement Kirk was seated in September and Jagoff Brown wasn't seated until February 4th.

It was more than 70 days. But even if it was the full two years they still wouldn't have done what was necessary.

It seemed to me that they were scared to death to have the power they had because people were expecting real change and that is not part of the owners', and thus their, agenda. They kept on kowtowing and bending over for the Republicans, it was sickening.

We'll never have a chance like that again.

[JoePhilly]

46. Those days are included in that count.

http://www.winningprogressive.org/democrats-had-a-filibuster-proof-senate-majority-for-72-days-during-president-obamas-first-term

Franken was seated in July, Kennedy died in August.

But I understand, the Dems were supposed to roll back 30+ years of GOP messes, in 72 days.

And they say no one wants a pony or a unicorn.

[PeteSelman]

49. Right, we shouldn't have expected better.

There's always an excuse. No one thought they could undo all of Reaganism's vileness in a short time but they could easily have done some of it. Card check, raising taxes, closing loopholes…at least a little bit of what we were promised as sweeping change.

There's never much problem doing the wrong things but doing the right things? Not enough time.

[JoePhilly]

53. Right ...

... because ending the Iraq war, passing the largest stimulus in history, and passing the ACA ... don't count as "a little bit" ... for some.

[PeteSelman]

54. All right, they're the greatest congress ever.

You say I ask for too much, I say you settled for too little.

Fair enough.

All of it is better than if Gramps and the moron won. Can't ask for more than that I guess.

[Bobbie Jo]

16. 111th Congress - One of the Most Productive in Decades

http://thecommongood.net/2013/07/nancy-pelosi/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122205620.html
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/12/23/136353/111-congress-achievement/

http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/ap-congress-most-productive-nearly-half-century


Most Effective Speaker of the House in
History:

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/425315/nancy_pelosi%3A_the_most_effective_speaker_of_the_house_in_history

Some of us remember.....

[Andy823]

17. Exactly

It's so sad that some here refuse to acknowledge all that "was done", but only dwell and the things that didn't get done. One thing is for sure, if we don't at least keep the Senate things will be a lot worse, but then I am sure that those who already complain on a daily basis will simply continue to blame it all on "Obama"!

[Johonny]

35. It blows my mind your comment is in the same thread

where so many are claiming that congress did nothing. We can only conclude a lot of people have forgotten

I agree while the legislation passed wasn't perfect that congress was amazingly more effective than what we've had since. It is almost like we don't want to remember so we can pretend it doesn't matter who controls congress. It was a lot more fun arguing if the Democratic legislation passing was liberal enough than it is to argue if the Rethug legislation can be blunted from doing the most damage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Becuase the House was very productive

the Senate not so much. Many of the Bills, the vast majority in fact, went to the US Senate to die.

[flamingdem]

44. +1

Thanks Bobbie Jo!

[Bandit]

21. We pretty much had super majorities in both houses when Obama first came to Office

We got what we got because many "Democrats" aren't really. Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, etc. IMO it is one reason many Democrats failed to show up in 2010. Democrats were given the reigns of Power and they asked Republicans what they should do..

[JoePhilly]

25. How many days did we actually have 60 votes? Do you know?

About 70 days.

[Skip Intro]

23. We had full control when the ACA was written and passed. n/t

[JoePhilly]

26. Actually, thats wrong.

We had 60 when it passed the Senate initially, but not when it passed the house. The House passed it along with an amendment. TH Senate passed that amendment using reconciliation, with less than 60 votes, and only then was it finally passed.

[karynnj]

48. We had 60 votes for just about 4 months -

They didn't seat Franken for months, Kennedy and Byrd were ill, but came in for key votes. In addition, we had 60 only after Specter changed parties. (In fact, until Specter changed, no one even though we could have 60. The expectation in 2008 was not even that we would win 59.)

The problem is that the Republicans were absolutely atypical in holding to the party line and refusing to work with Democrats. I would bet that key Democrats (Baucus, Kennedy) never thought that people like Hatch, Snowe and Collins would not even seriously negotiate.

[Enrique]

34. all the pretty ponies!

i strongly prefer to have dems in charge, but savvy DUers have taught me that expecting such things to actually happen is foolish and unrealistic.

[Miigwech]

37. Yes. But then again ....

But what if we had Prez Gore instead of Prez GW Bush (aka more gore)? We would have had revolution in Green Energy, the USA leading the way in green energy and jobs-- instead of what we have now- Facking. We would never have gone to war against Iraq (saving Hundreds of thousands of American and Iraq's lives, dead or wounded) America would still have the moral authority it had during the 1990's after the close of the Cold War. Shame on all those who voted for Bush. America, please, don't vote for right wing, haters, war mongers, dividers ......

[on point]

41. Imagine what we could've accomplished if dems had backbone & weren't DLC