hoosegow wrote:I would like to read what the source ironman. I'm not doubting it, I just want to read it. What are you excited about that he's done?
Curiously, what opposition did he face when he had two years of a filibuster proof Senate? Was it from his own party that caused all the problems, because they could have done anything?
Source is just US budgets from those years.
The two year "filibuster proof Senate" is a myth. Sixty Democrats, does not a filibuster proof Senate make. This included blue dog Democrats, these are people who would usually be moderate Republicans, but coming from conservative states, they have to run as Democrats to win a primary. Frequently those are the only Democrats that can win in such states too.
All that got us was a half-assed health plan, and a far too little too late "stimulus".
That said, his opposition did increase after the mid-term elections. I was however happy to see all the blue dogs lose their jobs. Two years of more conservative Republicans is well worth it for that.
By the way, don't read to much into my preference for Democrats. I think they're mostly a bunch of corporate w#0r3$ too. A lot of them are spineless cowards as well. It's all we have though due to the two party monopoly, which ensures the power remains with the interests who have it.