It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama scores the worst legislative record in history

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Considering that it's actually the job of Congress to pass legislation doesn't this reflect even more poorly on them? I mean they passed the fewest bills and spent the least amount of time at work. And who had a majority in Congress for the past 6 years? Funny. I don't see attacking the abilities of those Republican Congressmen.




posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Obama had congress for the first 5 years? How much did he get done then? The guy is an egomaniac he wants nothing if it's not "his"

So that is even less compelling evidence for you claim that Obama didn't want to work with Congress than your first post. Two leading questions and an opinion.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Right, the good to Obama bad to anyone else that was around him.

Maybe the mail carrier didn't get the laws transferred in the US post from the hill to Obama to sign?



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: damwel

Never have .never will so long as they have YOU and yours they have an audience to polish the turd more shiny for a whole new set of useful idiots to manipulate.
It's incredible YOU miss corruption that has been exposed ,just as equally a shame the damn RNC DOESN'T have bad security like the booger eating DNC,because THEY have done WORSE ,with MORE money ,and FAR more power due to their link to old money.
OF COURSE most of that information is conspiracy theories(NOT like Hillary whom WE KNEW was a creature of cash)
THE TEA PARTY knew this ,so WE ambushed BOTH of you with a middle finger, WILD CARD candidate.
HOLY CRAP it worked!
HE's working SO FAR but in case there are STILL issues WE will revert to treating HIS ass JUST like Hillary.
DREADED black firearms and all.
edit on 18-1-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
What is Obama's excuse for when he actually had a democratic majority in Congress and still couldn't get things done? I'd love to see what the snowflakes have to say about that.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: gernblan

Like I said earlier in the thread, he was actually trying to be bipartisan. Thus the Republican friendly version of Obamacare we got.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

If it was so Republican Friendly then why didn't one single Republican vote for it?



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: seasonal

yea, thats really odd... since Obama was met with the most opposition in legislative history.

what can you say... how can you put 2 and 2 or connect the dots. what can you say, there's no correlation to why but partisanship.


Obamacare poisoned the waters for him. When he dismissed the Republicans with "I won" and the proceeded to jam the most unpopular piece of legislation in living memory down America's throat without any popular support and along a solely party line vote, he lost both any chances of goodwill and lost the House in the midterms.

That was going to make it tough for him to get anywhere, and he doubled down on it all by declaring then that he didn't need Congress and working go around then instead of trying to moderate any of his plans to come back toward what might have been workable. And he lost the Senate ...



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

In plain words? To screw him and the Democrats over. Obamacare is the product of bipartisan committee and is based off Romneycare. If Obama wasn't trying to be bipartisan we would universal healthcare right now.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Actually, no. They needed to get the Democrats on board and there were several who wouldn't vote for that.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: gernblan

He didn't want to put in the work, he was busy on the golf course.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I have my doubts about your scenario. If I remember correctly the Democrats completely shut the GOP out of the bill process. Another thing I remember is that not enough time was given to read the 1000 page bill before being brought to a vote, hence Pelosi's comment about needing to pass the bill to see what's in it.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

The version of the bill that the House voted on included an amendment called the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. The Pitts in that amendment refers to Joseph Pitts, a Republican from Pennsylvania. So clearly there must have been some bipartisan discussion when the bill was written. Also, it should be pointed out that a Republican did vote for the bill. Joseph Cao from Louisiana.
edit on 1/18/2017 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

They didn't give enough time to read it, and didn't care. The repubs didn't care either, they are more than willing to point and say see it failed. The whole thing is a mess and that is the way the big $ is being made for the hospitals, Dr.s and insurance co.

Obama made a deal to get everyone a huge payday but the gullible idiots that voted for him.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: gernblan

Like I said earlier in the thread, he was actually trying to be bipartisan. Thus the Republican friendly version of Obamacare we got.


Democrats have been blaming Republicans ever since Democrats voted in Obama.Care.




posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Arizonaguy

The version of the bill that the House voted on included an amendment called the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. The Pitts in that amendment refers to Joseph Pitts, a Republican from Pennsylvania. So clearly there must have been some bipartisan discussion when the bill was written. Also, it should be pointed out that a Republican did vote for the bill. Joseph Cao from Louisiana.


Strange.

Here it shows Cao voting no




posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

With good reason, they are both responsible along with the dithering Obama.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Sorry. I was wrong. He voted Yes on the draft. When it came back to the House he voted No.

Source



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Thank the Founders for checks and balances!


I wish we had them now...checks and balances, that is...



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

The system worked perfectly, Obama dithered and got very little done.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join