PSA: Obama's Congress is NOT like FDR's Congress, for those Inclined to Compare the Two Leaders:

[NYC_SKP]

So there's a shitload of things FDR was able to do that make us all proud, and a lot of us are sayin', WTF Obama???

But thinking back to basic civics (as it's hard to understand how sickeningly dirty and complex government works, or doesn't work), we have to remember that the president can't do much with a hostile congress. Somehow people still hold unrealistically high expectations, IMHO.

FDR's 1935 (74th) Congress:

Senate--

....Dems: 73

....Reps: 21

House--

....Dems: 322

....Reps: 103

----Why can't Obama be more awesome???

Obama's 2011 (112th) Congress:

Senate--

....Dems: 51

....Reps: 47

House--

....Dems: 193

....Reps: 243


______________________________________________________________

I think it's fine to ask more of Obama, but unless we work hard to get more of the congress on our side it won't matter who the fuck in in the Oval Office.

Actually, it's not that complicated.

Carry on.

:patriot:

[midnight]

1. Can you give me the break down of what it looked like when

he took office?

[dennis4868]

Obama has always had a 24/7...

fillubuster threat over his head, DINOs and leaders of the opposition party with one goal - to destroy Obama. FDR had super majorities in congress and he still compromised his ass off! And he took alot of flack from liberals but FDR understood that change happens in baby steps and he was right....that's what O said during the 2008 campaign but many liberals conveniently forget this!

[bluestate10]

7. The problem when Obama took office was the Senate. Ben Nelson

was an unreliable vote, at best. With Nelson waffling, republicans were able to prevent a vote on bill after bill. With 73 democrats in the Senate, FDR would have had a huge buffer, even with ten Ben Nelsons to contend with. Nancy Pelosi did a great job in the House, even though she tripped up several times.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. How dare you inject rational thought into our self-flagellation!??

:P

[mmonk]

3. I believe the Democrats were in charge when Obama cut the deal

to extend the Bush tax cuts that set this shit up. Spin does not work on me. It's time for the New Democrats to give it up.

[dennis4868]

5. you are either lying to make O look bad or not informed...

you can have a majority in congress but it MEANS SHIT if it's not FILLUBUSTER PROOF....good night! :-)

[TheKentuckian]

18. Unless you are the TeaPubliKlans and then like 4 in the House and a single Senator

can make a circle d put Bork on the Supreme Court and kill free and reduced lunches for hungry but poor school kids.

[mmonk]

21. Good night and good luck.

I'm probably both by the way. And by the way, how many branches of the government do the Republicans currently control and then ask yourself why are they fully in control?

[polmaven]

32. What is it

about being filibuster proof don't you understand? With Dems like Nelson and alleged liberals like Lieberman, President Obama did not have a filibuster proof Senate. They had already refused to allow a vote to extend the UI benefits. What makes you think that the results of the 2010 election which reduced the Democratic majority would turn out differently?

[EFerrari]

6. Seriously. And it's going to be a cold day when I compare obama

to FDR.

[dennis4868]

22. they both have done a terrific job under....

the most difficult of circumstances!

[NYC_SKP]

29. Indeed, it's a strained comparison that many make, but still they hold FDR up as the model...

...that Obama should follow.

But who wouldn't LOVE to have that congress to work with in passing progressive legislation.

The next time someone shits on Obama for not creating an FDR like works project, they need to be reminded of the Congress and how government works.

Not that difficult, really.

[bluestate10]

10. Republicans would have eliminated unemployment benefit extensions

by killing any bill with such benefits in the Senate. Killing UE benefits would have been their revenge for Obama allowing the Bush cuts to expire. What trade off your you have made? I know I would have gone for having UE people keep food on their tables and look to fight the tax battle a later day.

[emulatorloo]

20. I believe you forgot that it was post 2010 election, after the Republicans had

Swept the 2010 election. That was the political climate, Dems had just faced a big loss.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

8. Huge K&R!!...nt

Sid

[Angry Dragon]

9. This was Obama's deal

He negotiated it ....... I am getting tired of hearing how the teabaggers and congress won't get him what he wants.
I have yet to see him fight for anything or the average American
When does he stand up to the bullies??
Everyday this country takes a step backward when he sits down at the table with the thugs
Compromise is one thing but one learns to fight when compromise does not work

This country needs tax revenue to save it. Did he fight for it, did he get on the tv and radio everyday and show the numbers, show the facts. I can show you facts and figures showing this country does a lot better when the tax rates are higher. If I can then the president should also be able to do the same thing.

There is no failure when you fight as hard as you can and as long as you can and still lose.
Where is the fighter Obama?? Show me where he is so I can see him. I am looking for that person

[emulatorloo]

23. Please explain how to get the current House to vote for revenue increases

I really would like to know how you see that getting done.

[Angry Dragon]

27. Just forget the first two years of his term

And you are very correct why even bother to put up a fight if you know you might lose, better to give in than fight

now why not answer my questions after you responded to my post........

If he is not willing to fight for anything why does he want to be president??

[emulatorloo]

31. 1. I said no such thing. 2. Explain to me how to get the Republican controlled house

to vote for revenue increases.

3. You are forgetting the first two years of his term if you are claiming nothing got done that we wanted.

He is obviously willing to fight. Yes the deal sucks, but it does not touch entitlement benefits.

[Angry Dragon]

40. #1. You asked how to get things done now and I mentioned

he had the first two years with both houses and he could not get
tax increases. He could have set the stage for future tax increases then.
But he negotiated keeping bush tax cuts, playing with SS by dropping 2%
on the payroll tax.

#2. Everything that got passed in the first two years is under attack
everyday. Heath care without the public/single payer. The banking
regulations.

If one fights you have to raise your level of fight to match theirs.
I have not seen that.

Yes the deal sucks so we should be happy that we are still alive??

Nothing has changed in this country and it will get worse, and has gotten worse.
The republicans are willing to destroy the Democratic Party. Is Obama willing to
fight hard enough to destroy the republican party?? NO!! So it is almost
impossible to win any fight if he is not willing to fight as hard as they are.

Half of this bill is not settled. It will not be until Thanksgiving.

[leftstreet]

11. Why do people (still) insist on comparing Obama to FDR?

lol

[bluestate10]

13. The comparison is valid. The Left always raise FDR as proof of how

impotent Obama is in their eyes. The Left should go into a library and study FDR's entire record instead of fantasizing. The most important changes to SS and the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid were done in the sixties. FDR's SS assumed that most of the people that paid in and their widows or widowers would be dead before they collected a cent.

[treestar]

17. FDR's ss and medicare assumed people died soon after they

qualified for it. Which then, they did. there were no ultrasounds or pacemakers.

There is not way FDR or anyone of that era contemplated long retirements that we expect now.

[leftstreet]

19. Looks like we'll be back to that soon enough n/t

[polmaven]

34. Correct..

The were done under LBJ.....Who also had super majorities in both the House and the Senate: I haven't finished the entire thread, but I'm sure we will/have heard all about how LBJ twisted arms and "forced" the passage......But it was probably a bit easier with this breakdown:

Senate - Democrats 66; Republicans 34
House - Democrats 258; Republicans 177

[RBInMaine]

12. Thanks for reminding the purists here that we actually do have 3 branches of government. It is a

point often lost on them.

[bluestate10]

14. Exactly. nt

[TheWraith]

15. Kicked and recommended.

Although that thing in your signature disturbs me. :D

[frazzled]

16. And yet Roosevelt did compromise often, with both Republicans and Southern Dems

A prime example would be the famous exclusion of approximately half of all American workers from the original Social Security Act, notably those in jobs that comprised primarily African Americans and women.

Roosevelt had to factor in the support of the large bloc of conservative (and racially exclusionary) Democrats from the Southern States in a lot of domestic policy. It is a fallacy to assume he always got everything he wanted, or even tried to get everything he wanted.

[Cerridwen]

24. "Everyone Chill the Fuck Out: I Got This"

Oh yeah, and FDR had Huey Long and many to the far left of him to push him into saving the owner class.

Did you know we even had a Communist Party and a Socialist Party in this country? How weird is that? /sarcasm

BTW, which is it; President Obama doesn't have the tools he needs or the sentiment in my image? He's multi-dimensionally playing a game of chess or is it multi-dimensional poker or he can't work with what he's got?

[datasuspect]

30. that picture is such a fucking joke

[SidDithers]

35. Is this one better?...

:rofl:

Sid

[datasuspect]

38. i'm amazed that you took the time to modify my idjit catcher

it worked.

[BlueCheese]

25. As I understand it...

What Obama defenders are trying to say is that if one party has 41 senators, then it gets to have its way on everything.

I'm pretty sure the Democrats also have 41 senators, but somehow that never seems to work out the same way.

[Liberal Veteran]

26. We don't have the house either.

It's a reality. It takes both houses of congress to pass legislation. And 41 Senators can do a damned good job of stopping legislation. If they march in lockstep, then our options are fairly limited.

Essentially, just because 41 Senators can stop legislation, it doesn't follow that the 41 Senators can pass legislation. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.

[LoZoccolo]

28. K&R!

:kick:

[John Agar]

33. Also, FDR was a DEMOCRAT.

Obama's "Democratic" Senate was less than useless, you are right on that one.

But I personally think it was a good match.

Tiny is as tiny do, as the bard once sang.

[joeybee12]

36. You're right, it's not complicated...Obama is not a leader, never has been

and never will be...his presidency is over and we need to realize this and work on keeping the Senate and making gains in the house....everyone...well, almost everyone...now sees this.

[tsuki]

37. It could have been, if he had wanted to be. He has undermined

the Democratic Party at every turn. He lost the House.

[LiberalAndProud]

39. Republicans were different back then, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Norris


There is no question that our national outlook has moved right. This same rightward bent is reflected in the views of the man we elected to be President. Could Congress make a difference? Absolutely. But I don't believe that Obama would ever be a new FDR, regardless of the Congress that we elect.

[Bluerthanblue]

41. that is quite a difference-

thank you for pointing this out.

I didn't realize the actual numbers were so different.

K&R