A Lesson in Civics for Liberals

[Truthseeker420]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Isn't it Republicands blaming Obama for this economy. you are preaching to the wrong people. Republicans controlled Congress and the White House from 2001 to 2007 and they own a majority of what is wrong with this economy. Clinton and Republican own some responsibility because of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Anyone who blames Democratic controlled Congress in 2007 of the the Stock Market in 2007 is ignorant and unable to point to one thing Congress did to cause the Stock Market crash.

 

[The Rabbi]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Isn't it Republicands blaming Obama for this economy. you are preaching to the wrong people. Republicans controlled Congress and the White House from 2001 to 2007 and they own a majority of what is wrong with this economy. Clinton and Republican own some responsibility because of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Anyone who blames Democratic controlled Congress in 2007 of the the Stock Market in 2007 is ignorant and unable to point to one thing Congress did to cause the Stock Market crash.

First off, the Dems had strong minorities all throughout the 2001-2006 period. The Dems took control at the beginning of 2007. The economy did not start going bad until the middle of 2008. Remember McCain rushing back to Washington to deal with the crisis during the campaign? Yeah, that was 2008. The market didnt crash until then. And the economy has little to do with the stock market. The market recovered through 2009 and the economy is still the shits. This is thanks to Dem policies like Obamacare and Dodd Frank.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

To whom exactly are you addressing this, Mr. Obvious?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

Apparently the meth lab trailer you were homeschooled in didn't include the President's veto power in your civics lesson.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Isn't it Republicands blaming Obama for this economy. you are preaching to the wrong people. Republicans controlled Congress and the White House from 2001 to 2007 and they own a majority of what is wrong with this economy. Clinton and Republican own some responsibility because of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Anyone who blames Democratic controlled Congress in 2007 of the the Stock Market in 2007 is ignorant and unable to point to one thing Congress did to cause the Stock Market crash.

First off, the Dems had strong minorities all throughout the 2001-2006 period. The Dems took control at the beginning of 2007. The economy did not start going bad until the middle of 2008. Remember McCain rushing back to Washington to deal with the crisis during the campaign? Yeah, that was 2008. The market didnt crash until then. And the economy has little to do with the stock market. The market recovered through 2009 and the economy is still the shits. This is thanks to Dem policies like Obamacare and Dodd Frank.

The stock market crash happened in Sep. 2007, the Consumer Confidence crash happened in june 2007( after it leveled from a series of dips due to Bush's irrational response to 911) and the housing crash was in 2006. None of which had anything to due with Obama,Dodd or Frank.

 

[Chris]

I love all this re-writing of history by Republicans.

Bush started two useless wars, a trillion dollar unfunded Medicare program, and defunded the government with tax breaks for the rich.

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy, while Bush's SEC looked the other way.

There's your civics lesson for you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Why don't you just skip the lecture and tell us what you want to blame Obama for,

specifically.

 

[skipper]

Maybe it’s clear to the Civics teacher now that the OP is nothing more than a template or baseline after reading all the subsequent posts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I love all this re-writing of history by Republicans.

Bush started two useless wars, a trillion dollar unfunded Medicare program, and defunded the government with tax breaks for the rich.

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy, while Bush's SEC looked the other way.

There's your civics lesson for you.

I love how he lays out this elaborate formula for power of Congress and the presidency as if he's merely trying to objectively educate on the facts,

and then works in a preposterous exception for Reagan to cover his ass.

 

[Bfgrn]

I love all this re-writing of history by Republicans.

Bush started two useless wars, a trillion dollar unfunded Medicare program, and defunded the government with tax breaks for the rich.

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy, while Bush's SEC looked the other way.

There's your civics lesson for you.

No Chris, you're wrong. Bush didn't look the other way...

You forgot about Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

 

[NYcarbineer]

So according to the poster's logic, Reagan didn't win the Cold War, the Democratic Congress did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

too bad it's all B.S.

reality for the sad little o/p... bush took office with a surplus. he ran it into the ground by running two wars while being the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime.

the repubs then de-regulated the banks.

THOSE two factors were largely responsible for imploding the economy at the end of bush's presidency. there were other exacerbating factors, but those were the largest ones.

so you can keep your "civics" lesson to yourself.

though apparently you do need a history lesson.

The banks were deregulated?
How's that work, exactly?

 

[Sallow]

Holy shit, you could get a job rewriting history and textbooks in Texas. You make the wingnut bullshit sound purdy...

Nicely written but ultimately completely incorrect. Leaves out stuff like historically, if a president wants a war..he gets it. And congress, when dominated by conservatives, will do everything in it's power to thwart or negate the power of the opposing party.

 

[Sallow]

too bad it's all B.S.

reality for the sad little o/p... bush took office with a surplus. he ran it into the ground by running two wars while being the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime.

the repubs then de-regulated the banks.

THOSE two factors were largely responsible for imploding the economy at the end of bush's presidency. there were other exacerbating factors, but those were the largest ones.

so you can keep your "civics" lesson to yourself.

though apparently you do need a history lesson.

The banks were deregulated?
How's that work, exactly?

A. Get rid of regulations.
B. Let the good times roll!

Having fun yet?

 

[Sallow]

So according to the poster's logic, Reagan didn't win the Cold War, the Democratic Congress did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love all this re-writing of history by Republicans.

Bush started two useless wars, a trillion dollar unfunded Medicare program, and defunded the government with tax breaks for the rich.

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy, while Bush's SEC looked the other way.

There's your civics lesson for you.

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy

How did zero sum bets destroy the world economy?

What does the notional amount of the bets have to do with anything?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

too bad it's all B.S.

reality for the sad little o/p... bush took office with a surplus. he ran it into the ground by running two wars while being the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime.

the repubs then de-regulated the banks.

THOSE two factors were largely responsible for imploding the economy at the end of bush's presidency. there were other exacerbating factors, but those were the largest ones.

so you can keep your "civics" lesson to yourself.

though apparently you do need a history lesson.

The banks were deregulated?
How's that work, exactly?

A. Get rid of regulations.
B. Let the good times roll!

Having fun yet?

Which bank regulations do you feel Bush eliminated?
Be as specific as you can.

 

[Sallow]

First off, the Dems had strong minorities all throughout the 2001-2006 period. The Dems took control at the beginning of 2007. The economy did not start going bad until the middle of 2008. Remember McCain rushing back to Washington to deal with the crisis during the campaign? Yeah, that was 2008. The market didnt crash until then. And the economy has little to do with the stock market. The market recovered through 2009 and the economy is still the shits. This is thanks to Dem policies like Obamacare and Dodd Frank.

Well go on then. Explain in detail how Obamacare and Dodd/Frank caused this economic mess. Bear in mind, neither is fully implemented yet. So this should be interesting. Sorta like "Minority Report" without all the logic.

 

[Sallow]

The banks were deregulated?
How's that work, exactly?

A. Get rid of regulations.
B. Let the good times roll!

Having fun yet?

Which bank regulations do you feel Bush eliminated?
Be as specific as you can.

Defunding of regulatory agencies. That work?

Most of the damage was done in prior administrations regulation wise, specifically the effective repeal of Glass-Steagall. But after the whole Arthur Anderson debacle, there was reason enough to reinstate that. And it just was not done.

 

[Sallow]

I love all this re-writing of history by Republicans.

Bush started two useless wars, a trillion dollar unfunded Medicare program, and defunded the government with tax breaks for the rich.

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy, while Bush's SEC looked the other way.

There's your civics lesson for you.

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy

How did zero sum bets destroy the world economy?

What does the notional amount of the bets have to do with anything?

Because they were hedging the "bets" with AIG. And AIG couldn't cover the loses.

Sheesh.