Paul Ryan to Slam President Obama for ‘Politics of Division’

When Ryan cites days without a budget he’s talking about the number of days the GOP held it up. When the other side is the Party of NO, it’s tough to accomplish anything. Where’s that GOP jobs bill?

I guess we will have to wait until the elections to see who the voters blame the most for this division. Anybody want to make bets?

They’re like a child breaking something and blaming it on the kid across the room. That “budget” rhetoric is just more rhetoric. They had the house and senate for 12 straight years and I believe they did maybe three real budget votes.

also, @The_MIck, who likes to parrot DNC talking points.. fyi; the GOP House has PASSED at least SIX Jobs bills this year that sit on Harry Reid’s desk. Harry Reid will not bring these up for vote. This US Senate has done less than any other Senate in memory…the House has passed a multitude of bills that the Senate will not even vote on. ABC should show the number of bills even voted on during the last year by each branch of Congress.

“When Ryan cites days without a budget he’s talking about the number of days the GOP held it up. When the other side is the Party of NO, it’s tough to accomplish anything. Where’s that GOP jobs bill?”

That’s a flat-out lie, and you know it. The House (both under Dem and GOP leadership) produced their budgets. The Dems have held the Senate the entire time. There’s no way the GOP could force Harry Reid from not producing a budget. Even the Obamessiah managed to propose a budget (although it was voted down 97-0 – blame that one on the Pubbies).

And by the way, Skippy, the GOP has produced multiple “jobs” bills. All blocked by the Dem-controlled Senate.

MATT – You must have misunderstood. We mean “REAL” jobs bills. Not campaign bunk. You don’t pass something to deregulate so your campaign spenders can make more money and call it a jobs bill.

Paul Ryan lives in his own fantasy land. As stated by themselves, the republicans have one goal and that’s to stop the re-election of this President. Any bill that would help this country is delayed or blocked by the confederacy of dunces. They know that if the economy improves or the unemployment rate goes down they have even less of a chance of taking the White House as they do now. The republicans have clearly put party over country and Paul Ryan is a symbol of their stupidity.

900 days without a budget in the Senate as an example of inaction. …Really!? I thought the Left already debunked this?

Harry Reid……the president’s henchman.

Secondlook | October 26, 2011, 9:10 am —– I think you should worry more about the here and now. We have a President bent on spending money we no longer have. I guess he will continue to do so until we get another downgrade. Also, you, and many others, tend to forget our government has been almost 50/50 for a very long time. I find it comical when people say the GOP wants to ensure Obama is a one term President when both parties function the same way. We need to clean both sides of the aisle for real change.

Paul Ryan and Scott Walker are the practitioners of social division par excellence! It was the actions of these two who caused hundreds of thousands of ordinary people to take to the streets of Madison and other towns and cities across Wisconsin. Paul Ryan does not just sow the seeds of social unrest. He actively waters it, fertilizes it, and harvest it.

Paul Ryan is the most divisive TEA party-er in Washington and is also the real leader of the TEA controlled House! He’s going to slam the president anytime he can. His tactics are to throw road blocks into the mix to defray the 112th Congress’ inaction!

UH! Just for the record! The GOP held both the house and the senate from January, 1995 until January, 2007. For those trolls who would argue about those dates, elections were held in November of 1994 and 2006 but the TERMS didn’t start til the following JANUARY in each case. Six years under Clinton and six years under Bush. Don’t believe it ? LOOK IT UP. 12 years under Republithug rule got us on the brink of disaster and they are working their little bottoms off to finish us off.
Obama RAN and was ELECTED in 2008 but he DID NOT take office until JANUARY OF 2009. You can pretend he was president when the TARP bailout took place but you can’t change the fact any more than the GOP idiots who used a chart showing all presidents up to and including Obama but with Bush’s face moved to a tiny little corner disconnected from the rest and stated that Obama personally had run up all debt from the time Clinton left office until the day the Congressman made his phony analogy with his chart.
Just because FOKKKS tells you differently doesn’t change the FACTS. If anything, Harry Reid should use reconciliation as often as he can and the GOP be d****d because they would rather see the U.S. crash and burn before helping anyone other than their cash cows.
To those of you who know the facts, just ignore. Only those trolls who whine about the Democrats being responsible for everything the Rs have done and the one who claims Rs didn’t hold both the house and senate for 12 years need the lesson. Though I’d be willing to bet he/she will never bother to check because it’s easier to just listen to FOKKKS and live in fantasy land.

The tea party, confederacy of dunces, supposedly formed to change Washington, to stop the grid lock. Instead they elected people who had to follow their narrow believes and made them sign pledges to never compromise. Now they blame the President because Congress can’t do its job. They think the majority of Americans are either blind or deaf and can’t see all the BS that goes on in the Republican Party.

Has anyone noticed that the republicans want de-regulation but never say what regulations they want repealed. Maybe the regulation that says you can’t sell meat that has salmonella or other bacteria or that electronics plants can’t dump toxic wastes into our ground water or that companies have to provide a safe work place. Why are they afraid to be more specific?

I really, really enjoy when Republicans get branded as the party as no, and accused of stopping everything Obama did in his presidency, as “THE_Mick” is doing. Take a simple civics lesson kid. To pass something in the House you need 218 votes, the Democrats had more than that by around 30 votes, and in the Senate you need 60 votes, which the Democrats had. The Republicans could of said No, Yes, Maybe, or literally screamed or left and done NOTHING. The Democrats had COMPLETE control of the House, Senate and the Presidency. COMPLETE, not just a majority, but a supermajority, they literally could of passed a bill raising taxes or whatever they wanted. So to blame the Republicans is not only wrong, but simply stupid. There is no reason that the Democrats could not have passed a budget in the first 2 years of Obama’s presidency. Let me reiterate, they had COMPLETE CONTROL.

I have to take issue with PKSK531, because that post is based on wildly inaccurate claims.

Firstly, the Democrat-controlled Congress in 2010 was not prevented by Republicans from voting on the President’s plan. As House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made clear in a June 2010 address to The Third Way, the position of Democrats was that no budget resolution would be possible until the bipartisan deficit-reduction commission had released their findings in December, beyond the end of the fiscal year. This is hogwash, of course, but it makes a specious kind of sense – and it clearly identifies the President’s commission as the reason cited by Democrats for their failure to pass an annual budget resolution.

Hoyer also bravely asserted Democrats would embrace fiscal responsibility, even as they “deemed” as passed a phantasmal budget for FY 2010. FY 2010 recorded the largest fiscal deficit, in absolute terms or as a share of GDP, in history.

In 2011, the House has passed a budget. The Senate doesn’t have to abide by it; it can produce its own and pass it, and let the two fight it out in joint committee. Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, far from blocking the passage of such a bill, has repeatedly urged Harry Reid to break a habit now more than 900 days old and fulfil the basic responsibility of the Senate by passing an annual budget. Reid has declined – as Majority Leader in the Senate, he has absolute discretion over the scheduling of such a debate – citing… the deficit-reduction work of, first, the Biden-led exercise in futility, and, now, the supercommittee forged out of the last wrangle over deficit reduction.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s still hogwash, and it’s still not Republicans’ fault.

The whole thing, in fact, including the debt-ceiling showdown and the downgrade of U.S. credit – another historic first under Obama – was avoidable if only Congress had passed, rather than deemed, its budget in the past two years. This is because, by rule, any budget bill explicitly authorizes a debt-ceiling increase to cover the budgeted spending; Congress can only risk exceeding the debt ceiling if it doesn’t actually budget in the first place, which is what the Democrats did.

Then there’s the filibuster canard. Filibusters were enabled by a Senate rule change in 1806, rather a while before Obama became President. The rule enabling a supermajority (originally, two-thirds of the Senate) to invoke cloture was established (by Democrats) in 1917, under President Woodrow Wilson. It was amended to its current “three-fifths of the Senate” formula by Democrats in 1975. There was no rule change in 2005 – Republicans threatened a “nuclear option” to overcall the filibusters being used BY DEMOCRATS at that time to block Senate business (since, in 2005, Republicans enjoyed a majority in both chambers of Congress, it would be very strange for a 2005 rule change by Republicans to benefit the minority party), but never actually invoked it, the Gang of 14 arising to head off that problem as events unfolded. The Constitution does not require a simple majority for the Senate to pass a bill; the Constitution, quite properly, allows the Senate leeway to devise its own rules for debating and passing legislation, which have included cloture votes for almost a century in one form or another. They’re used more frequently now, because Mr. Obama’s “we won” attitude to bipartisan compromise is the new normal. It’s good for democracy that they are; it would be better if our representatives could take their duties seriously, but that’s not a reasonable expectation.