BB, Nothing will take hold until things get really bad.
SS, I didn't bother to read your link. Are you trying to tell me that the dems didn't have control of both houses of Congress for two years? If so, quit reading Huffpo...
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Soulshiner wrote: Show me where and when the Democrats had a super majority in the congress. Without a super majority, you do not have control of the congress. Period.
I love the weak modern Dems. Even lame old Speaker Denny Hastert was able to get things done. Tip O'neil would be ashamed of the modern group of nancyboys called the Democrat Party. "Woe is us. We don't have a supermajority." Guess what SS? You won't have a supermajority in 2013 either. The left side of Congress shouldn't bother even showing up. Right? It is called negotiation. They used it to get ACA passed and then what?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Soulshiner wrote: Show me where and when the Democrats had a super majority in the congress. Without a super majority, you do not have control of the congress. Period.
The majority in Congress gets to head all of the committees. That means they get to decide what comes up for a vote and what doesn't. I don't know how you could possibly define that as anything but control. I could even understand your remarkably uninformed argument if the ratios had been close to 50/50, but they weren't. In the House, it was 256 to 178. That's pretty darned close to a super majority- 6 votes shy. In the same period in the Senate, it was 57-41-2 with the two being dems that lost primaries. Honestly, if you can't get things passed with those kind of numbers, you need to go home. I guess the American people agreed...
