How many blame republicans?

[Mr. Shaman]

Agreed but it does seem that the democrats have had more time to screw things up then the Republicans have. Don't get me wrong the Republicans aren't prefect but lets not fool ourself the democrats have controlled the government more then the republicans have.

While the dems controlled it, there were more than enough repubs content to play go-along-to-get-along, so they'd get the good tee times and get invited to all the good parties.

Like Otter said:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-glKGjp50Ug]YouTube - Animal House[/ame]

The only time Congress ever did anything correct was when Reagan was President. Tax cuts jumped started a failed democratic economy. The community re-envestment act was the beginning of the failure of Freedy Mac and Fanny Mae, hand outs for those who could not repay their loans.. and barney franks and company said these two groups where sound and strong up until they fell down.

In-this-day-and-age, you're (actually) gonna try to sell the benefits o' deficit-spending??

Good Luck....with that!!!!!​

"With the final confirmation of President Bush's Cabinet appointments, we seem to be entering a period of deja vu, a rerun of of an old Reagan movie with a partly new cast. Reagan's discredited Star Wars missle defense is getting a hard-sell revival, along with calls for increased overall defense spending. Likewise, Bush platitudes and cliches include promoting an across-the-board taxcut, expected to reduce federal revenues by $1.6 trillion over a decade. In an historical parallel, the Reagan/Bush-era tax cuts and increased defense spending plunged the federal budget into enormous deficits, increasing the entire accumulated debt from the 204-year history of the US from $750 billion at the end of President Carter's term to $4.35 trillion just 12 years later."

You should have done a little-more homework, before deciding you were experienced-enough to navigate ReRon's Fiscal-Responsibility Side-Show.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Agreed but it does seem that the democrats have had more time to screw things up then the Republicans have. Don't get me wrong the Republicans aren't prefect but lets not fool ourself the democrats have controlled the government more then the republicans have.

Two faces on the same counterfeit coin.

The point is Republicans are being blamed for what they did not do.

....Only in the Teabagger World....where a familiarity with History has NEVER been an entrance-requirement.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Good luck

I love a good debate.

Buy some popcorn...find a comfortable-seat...and, watch your toes.... ....unless you want to join the evac-team, and help carry-off the rookies that've come, before you.

​

 

[mudwhistle]

Seems this recurring nightmare is in our faces again.

Would you believe Obama wants another $50 billion in stimulus money now?

This weekend the Obama Administration called for another $50 billion to bail out 300,000 teachers....all union members of course....or they're gonna be laid off.

With states still facing large budget shortfalls, Obama wants to minimize the potential loss of teachers, law-enforcement officers, and firefighters. He estimates that as many as 300,000 teachers could be laid off. In this way, the money would largely pick up where the $787 billion federal stimulus bill left off.

Yet on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Obama adviser David Axelrod plumbed the depths of the English language in order to try to avoid calling the money a stimulus.

In the end, he conceded: “We should not be too careless about pulling out of our stimulative efforts too quickly.”

Don't call it a stimulus package: Obama wants another $50 billion - CSMonitor.com

I guess the trillions he's spending that we don't have isn't enough.

 

[editec]

The USA public lost trillions in perceived cash.

The stimulus was too small from the getgo.

But even the stimulus isn't going to overcome the fact that the system is wrongheaded to begin with.

And Obama, or anybody who can attain the office of POTUS (be they R or D) isn't about to fix that.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The only time Congress ever did anything correct was when Reagan was President. Tax cuts jumped started a failed democratic economy. The community re-envestment act was the beginning of the failure of Freedy Mac and Fanny Mae, hand outs for those who could not repay their loans.. and barney franks and company said these two groups where sound and strong up until they fell down.

With an intervention, you can be saved.

Anything is better then what we have now.

Ah, yes.....the Right Wing has all-of-a-sudden decided they're not gonna fall for "....’cause of the war.", anymore, huh??



Gee.....what timing.​

 

[mudwhistle]

The USA public lost trillions in perceived cash.

The stimulus was too small from the getgo.

But even the stimulus isn't going to overcome the fact that the system is wrongheaded to begin with.

And Obama, or anybody who can attain the office of POTUS (be they R or D) isn't about to fix that.

So I guess HOPE and CHANGE was a pipe-dream?

 

[L.K.Eder]

You seem to be missing something. The number you gave are Congress in full, both Democrat and Republican.

It seems to me that what your numbers need to show is the count of Democrats in Congress and how many of them voted for the Approval of the war.

Just my humble opinion in reading this discussion.

Immie

out of 535 members in Congress 375 members voted for approval of the war.

OH I SEE NOW

Democratic 82 126 one did not vote
126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution
and thats not a large majority of Democrats. A majority but not a large majority

Then again look at the democrats who did vote for the war Biden being one Clinton being another Kennedy being another.

kennedy? lol


and you started out so superstrong:

 

[Mr. Shaman]

With an intervention, you can be saved.

Anything is better then what we have now.

That's what the Bushbots said...Didn't work out so hot.

That's what's mysteriously-missing, presently....a sense of History...in that wild, wacky WORLD O' TEABAGGERS!!!

 

[maineman]

the fact remains: a majority of congressional democrats thought it was a bad idea to invade, conquer and oppupy Iraq in order to effect regime change and to rid Saddam of his (non-existent) stockpiles of WMD's.

try as they might, republicans cannot change the fact that they overwhelmingly supported our invasion of Iraq to rid Saddam of weapons he didn't have, and that invasion has had enormous easily calculated costs in blood and treasure, and not many calculable benefits.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam and his secular baathists stood as a bulwark minimizing Iran's plans for regional theocratic hegemony. Now, Iraq is run by a shiite majority sympathetic to Iran and will, in all probability, closely align themselves with Iran upon our eventual departure.

Were you still active-duty then, Commander?
Whether you were, or not...are you going to sit there and tell me you weren't chanting, "Bomb those fuckers!" when it was all going down??

I retired in '93, and no, I was appalled that we unleashed shock and awe on an arab city's population that had done NOTHING to harm us on 9/11.

I spent two years on active duty in Lebanon with the UN contingent there and I KNOW that the arab world's opinion of the USA is nowhere near as monolithic and negative and violent as the Bush administration would have had us believe.

The citizens of Baghdad were NOT our enemies, but now, as a result of our invading, conquering, and occupying their country.... many of them are.

I was 100% behind our early actions in Afghanistan and volunteered to go back on active duty to participate in that action. I have been dead set against our war in Iraq since before it started.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It is amazing how much havoc the republicans were able to wreck in the short time they had control, eh?

Problem is they haven't been in a position to wreck havoc for over 4 years and said havoc didn't take place until 07. [check the dates on the banking and housing crisis]

Try, again, Mudd-Butt.

Try 2000!!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcJ4sjgtIR0]YouTube - American Casino[/ame]​

"The Glass-Steagall Act provided the proper oversight and entity separation that would prohibit banks and other financial companies from merging into giant trusts....

In 1999, former Senator Phil Gramm (who is, incidentally, Senator John McCain's economic adviser and cochairs his presidential campaign) set out to completely gut the Glass-Steagall Act, and did so successfully...."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Seems this recurring nightmare is in our faces again.

Would you believe Obama wants another $50 billion in stimulus money now?

This weekend the Obama Administration called for another $50 billion to bail out 300,000 teachers....all union members of course....or they're gonna be laid off.

I guess the trillions he's spending that we don't have isn't enough.

So, NOW, you Right Wingers are thinkin'....takin'-over babysitting-duties (from George Sr. & Babs) might NOT have been a very-good-idea, huh?????

It's a little-late, for THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

You are one of the few maybe you haven't noticed though that there is a lot of blame being pushed off on the Republicans.
How about Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae failures?

Oh sorry, I have noticed it.

I simply don't agree that it should be entirely pushed off on Republicans nor do I believe that Republicans are entirely without fault.

It is that way in most issues as far as I can tell.

Now, please don't ask me where I find fault with the Republicans in this case, because that is a big issue and quite frankly I'm not sure I can lay my fingers on a good answer to it. Although, I have little doubt that some blame can be placed with the Republicans in regards to the issue.

Immie

Are you also aware that the Republicans tried to regulate Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae in 2003,2005,2006? But they did not have enough power to stop any Democratic fillabuster.

Dear GOP: Fannie, Freddie Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis | Mother Jones
A report (pdf) by the Government Accountability Office, the non-partisan investigatory arm of Congress, supports all these arguments. According to the GAO report, Fannie and Freddie didn't go wild in the mid-2000s buying up mortgages in the secondary market because of some government mandate, like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, to increase homeownership among low-income Americans. On the contrary, "Former [Federal Housing Finance Agency] Director [James] Lockhart stated that the enterprises’ primary motivation in purchasing [Alt-A and subprime mortgage backed] assets was to restore their share of the mortgage market, which declined substantially from 2004 through 2007 as the 'nontraditional' (for example, subprime) mortgage market rapidly increased in size. FHFA further stated that the enterprises viewed such mortgage assets as offering attractive risk-adjusted returns." In other words, they wanted to be bigger players in the mortgage business again, to make money where they thought they could—not because Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) or some other politician told them what to do.

Much more at the link, all sourced material.

 

[MaggieMae]

What are you smoking? Those old video's as you call them prove plenty. that there was a problem and the Republicans tried to address but listen to what the democrats had to say abnout it. I would imagine that if the Republicans would have had a super majority we would not have been in this mess.The democrats could have fillabustered because the Republicans did not have a 60 majority to stop a fillabuster.

no the republicans did not try to fix a thing....they were lobbied with big cash by freddie mac so they BACKED OFF of it....they were no better.

GOP LOBBY TIED TO KILLING OVERHAUL BILL - NYPOST.com

You do realize that you are using the New York Post as a source? The New York Post is also a propanda tool for the DNC, same as with the New York Times.

See that just proves how little knowledge you have overall. The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch's group "News Corp." It endorsed John McCain for president. Its opinion pages are written by journalists like Mona Charon. Shall I go on?

 

[MaggieMae]

Did bush do that or are you twisting tha fact? Now if he did do this why would he try regulate Fredy mac and Fanny Mae in 2003?

There used to be a White House link to Bush's announcement, but it's been scrubbed from WhiteHouse.gov because he doesn't rent that house anymore. But you can maybe find something imbedded here, a FoxNews article on the subject (which may be more to your liking). As for F&F and its relationship to Bush's homeownership program, he wanted to see more conventional loans made by private mortgage companies. Well, he got that wish all right. Where are they now?

FOXNews.com - Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership - You Decide 2004

What is it about the year 2003 when Bush said Freddy and Fanny had to be regulated rhat you do not understand?
Bush Administration Tried to Reform Freddie and Fannie Five Years Ago
CNSNews.com - Bush Administration Tried to Reform Freddie and Fannie Five Years Ago

And the filty New York Times.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - The New York Times

Seems you can't keep the issues separate. F&F had zero to do with Bush's Homeownership Program, nada, zip, zilch.

 

[MaggieMae]

Did bush do that or are you twisting tha fact? Now if he did do this why would he try regulate Fredy mac and Fanny Mae in 2003?

There used to be a White House link to Bush's announcement, but it's been scrubbed from WhiteHouse.gov because he doesn't rent that house anymore. But you can maybe find something imbedded here, a FoxNews article on the subject (which may be more to your liking). As for F&F and its relationship to Bush's homeownership program, he wanted to see more conventional loans made by private mortgage companies. Well, he got that wish all right. Where are they now?

FOXNews.com - Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership - You Decide 2004

What is it about the year 2003 when Bush said Freddy and Fanny had to be regulated rhat you do not understand?
Bush Administration Tried to Reform Freddie and Fannie Five Years Ago
CNSNews.com - Bush Administration Tried to Reform Freddie and Fannie Five Years Ago

And the filty New York Times.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - The New York Times

Duly noted. But I see you also chose to use CNS News, an online right wing news outlet. But wait! That's part of its logo! Imagine that.

 

[beowolfe]

I have been a member of this board for less then a day and I have read a few misinformed replies about blaming the republicans for all that is wrong with this country. I am here to set the record straight.


Since 1945 the democrats have controlled the house all but 7 times

From 1949 to 1993 the Democrats have controlled the house.
= 44years

2006 until the present the Democrats have controlled the house.
=4 years

Democrats controlled the senate
1945,
1949,
1951
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
=32years

Also I will add that the democrats control both house and senate from
1955-1979
= 24 years

and from1987-1993
= 6 years
And in 2001 the democrats controlled the senate
= 2years


Years Democrats controlled White House and Congress[/B]
1945
1949
1951
1961
1963
1965
1967
1977
1979
1993
1995
1997
1999
2009
= 28 years


The Repoublicans controlled the Senate
1947
1953
1981
1983
1985
1995
1997
1999
2003
2005
= 20years

the Republicans had controlled the house
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
=12years

Years Republican controlled the White House and Congress
2003
2005
=4years
And here is a look at each year
Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

Senate Majority Leaders & Speakers of the House (meaning their party had control of the senate)

1995-1997 - Trent Lott (R-MS) Newt Gingrich (R-GA) President - Bill Clinton (D-AR)
1997-1997 - Trent Lott (R-MS) Newt Gingrich (R-GA) President - Bill Clinton (D-AR)
1999-2001 - Trent Lott (R-MS) Dennis Hastert (R-IL) President - Bill Clinton (D-AR)/George W. Bush (R-TX)
2001-2003 - Tom Daschle (D-SD) Dennis Hastert (R-IL) President - George W. Bush (R-TX)
2003-2005 - Bill Frist (R-TN) Dennis Hastert (R-IL) President - George W. Bush (R-TX)
2005-2007 - Bill Frist (R-TN) Dennis Hastert (R-IL) President - George W. Bush (R-TX)

Couple that with the general change in direction that came with the Reagan revolution, and yes, I say the GOP is a whole lot more responsible for driving the economy off the cliff than the Democrats.

 

[DiamondDave]

And Mags links to a winger site as proof... go figure.... but sorry mags, what you have posted is not proof of your assertion

 

[rdean]

Republicans insist that none of the current mess is their fault, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not the economy, not the Katrina clean up, not deregulation.

And yet, where are their ideas for fixing all this mess.

No, they want the president to "fail". Waterloo.

If you are not part of the solution, you ARE the problem.

 

[MaggieMae]

No it was not a lie and you know it I was trying to be civbil to you but you had to lie when you said I lied.

Here is what I posted
On Oct. 10 and 11, 2002, the U.S. Senate debated and authorized President Bush's request to wage war on Iraq. Joe Biden voted with the 77-23 majority, which included 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats.
Sen. Joe Biden on Going to War Against Iraq - Joe Biden in His Own Words on War With Iraq

United States House of Representatives
Ayes 297
Nay's 133
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so... when I said that a majority of congressional democrats voted against it, and you called me out on that, you were wrong. I have done the math for years now and have no desire to go back and get links again just to prove what I KNOW to be the truth. Count up the democrats in congress when those votes were cast. As I said before, a MAJORITY of them voted AGAINST the use of force.

thanks for playing.

Can you count?
435 members in the house of Representatives
297 voted for the war approval
100 members in the U.S Senate
77voted for the war approval

That is a majority

Don't mention it I was glad I could help you understand what a majority is.

Somewhere in the Iraq Resolution is the caveat [paraphrasing] "after all other options have been exhausted." And THAT is what Democrats relied upon. Unbeknownst to everyone, however, troops were already marching toward Baghdad, aircraft carriers already positioned in the Persian Gulf, while the UN awaited Saddam Hussein's compliance with Bush's last ditch 48-hour notice for him to prove he no longer had any WMD.

See UN action here, particularly the March 7, 2003 entry:
Timeline, 1990 - 2010 - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org