Thread: Policies that "Got Us In This Mess"

alloak41 - 9/4/2012 at 06:07 PM

???

The already oft-repeated Democrat talking point of the GOP returning to policies that "got us in this mess" is likely to be repeated constantly over the next 60 days....But specifically which ones are they talking about?

Another variation that we're hearing a lot of is that the GOP is not offering anything new that will get the country moving forward. This is debateable, but would it really matter if an idea is old or new if it helps?

"They want us to go back to the same policies that got us in this mess in the first place!".....Definitely a favorite line, but do the Democrats have enough of a case to constantly repeat it over and over? Please make it.


dougrhon - 9/4/2012 at 08:03 PM

quote:
???

The already oft-repeated Democrat talking point of the GOP returning to policies that "got us in this mess" is likely to be repeated constantly over the next 60 days....But specifically which ones are they talking about?

Another variation that we're hearing a lot of is that the GOP is not offering anything new that will get the country moving forward. This is debateable, but would it really matter if an idea is old or new if it helps?

"They want us to go back to the same policies that got us in this mess in the first place!".....Definitely a favorite line, but do the Democrats have enough of a case to constantly repeat it over and over? Please make it.


When Obama had total control of the Congress for the first two years of his term he proposed exactly NO legislation to prevent the recurrence of the kinds of things that led to the crisis. And to this day it has not been resolved at all and could easily and likely will easily happen again. The one thing that FDR deserves ENORMOUS credit for is not curing the depression but putting into place the kinds of reforms (Federal Deposit Insurance, the SEA of 34 etc.) to prevent that kind of abuse from happening again. That sort of thing would have been easily passed with bi-partisan support and could have been a real achievement for his administration. Instead he pushed through a useless spending spree and a deeply unpopular health care "reform".


Sang - 9/4/2012 at 08:12 PM

I believe they are referring to the policies of having the Bush tax cuts while paying for 2 wars and also going on a spending spree - like the prescription drug plan with no funding .......and wondering why the deficit was rising....... but then you knew that........


Fujirich - 9/4/2012 at 09:12 PM

quote:
I believe they are referring to the policies of having the Bush tax cuts while paying for 2 wars and also going on a spending spree - like the prescription drug plan with no funding .......and wondering why the deficit was rising....... but then you knew that........
Good points all Sang.

So if these things were all so damaging, why haven't actions been taken, discussed, planned, etc to change them? Why wasn't immediate action taken to pull the troops out of the wars? Why wasn't Medicare Part D de-funded or closed down? Why weren't the Bush rates reversed when the D's had the power to make changes in Obama's first two years? If the deficit were such a problem (Obama called it "unpatroitic" and pledged to cut in it half), why has nothing been done by this Administration to reduce it?

It's all well and good to keep blaming the past. After four years, the more important question is what has he done about it.


Swifty - 9/5/2012 at 12:58 AM

quote:
???

The already oft-repeated Democrat talking point of the GOP returning to policies that "got us in this mess" is likely to be repeated constantly over the next 60 days....But specifically which ones are they talking about?

Another variation that we're hearing a lot of is that the GOP is not offering anything new that will get the country moving forward. This is debateable, but would it really matter if an idea is old or new if it helps?

"They want us to go back to the same policies that got us in this mess in the first place!".....Definitely a favorite line, but do the Democrats have enough of a case to constantly repeat it over and over? Please make it.


The second strategy will be effective because Romney will be asked about it and refuse to comment. He is on record stating that the details and overall plans will be announced after he is elected.

For number 3 they have unearthed more material that will more than sustain this point. It involves tape and itís very poignant.

I think they will let Bill Clinton take care of number 1 at the convention and in ads.



sixty8 - 9/5/2012 at 01:01 AM

quote:
quote:
???

The already oft-repeated Democrat talking point of the GOP returning to policies that "got us in this mess" is likely to be repeated constantly over the next 60 days....But specifically which ones are they talking about?

Another variation that we're hearing a lot of is that the GOP is not offering anything new that will get the country moving forward. This is debateable, but would it really matter if an idea is old or new if it helps?

"They want us to go back to the same policies that got us in this mess in the first place!".....Definitely a favorite line, but do the Democrats have enough of a case to constantly repeat it over and over? Please make it.


When Obama had total control of the Congress for the first two years of his term he proposed exactly NO legislation to prevent the recurrence of the kinds of things that led to the crisis. And to this day it has not been resolved at all and could easily and likely will easily happen again. The one thing that FDR deserves ENORMOUS credit for is not curing the depression but putting into place the kinds of reforms (Federal Deposit Insurance, the SEA of 34 etc.) to prevent that kind of abuse from happening again. That sort of thing would have been easily passed with bi-partisan support and could have been a real achievement for his administration. Instead he pushed through a useless spending spree and a deeply unpopular health care "reform".


That is a bunch of BS right there. Obama had four months before seat changes gave the Republicans their ability to filibuster and sand bag everything Obama wanted to do, even legislation that they formely agreed to for fear of giving Obama credit for anything positive. He did not have four years with complete control. W Bush had tons of control and had lots of legislation passed and look where we are. We don't know whether Obama's policies would work or not because none of them have been implemented with the exception of Romneycare/Obamacare which I don't know how they got through. Also, the useless spending spree you talk of helped us stay out of a depression and saved the American auto industry at a time when the private sector wasn't gonna bail them out with bankrupcy and was gonna let the whole industry disapear. The stimulus needed to be larger and included massive infrastructure repair and improvements which has been sitting with Congress for a year waiting to be signed. It would put hundreds of thousands of people to work but God forbid that happen before November. That would ruin the sand bagging and fillibustering record the GOP have worked so hard for.

http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-fo r-two.html

[Edited on 9/5/2012 by sixty8]


sixty8 - 9/5/2012 at 01:03 AM

quote:
quote:
I believe they are referring to the policies of having the Bush tax cuts while paying for 2 wars and also going on a spending spree - like the prescription drug plan with no funding .......and wondering why the deficit was rising....... but then you knew that........
Good points all Sang.

So if these things were all so damaging, why haven't actions been taken, discussed, planned, etc to change them? Why wasn't immediate action taken to pull the troops out of the wars? Why wasn't Medicare Part D de-funded or closed down? Why weren't the Bush rates reversed when the D's had the power to make changes in Obama's first two years? If the deficit were such a problem (Obama called it "unpatroitic" and pledged to cut in it half), why has nothing been done by this Administration to reduce it?

It's all well and good to keep blaming the past. After four years, the more important question is what has he done about it.


Correction. You mean first four months before seat changes gave the Republicans their filibuster machine.

http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-fo r-two.html

[Edited on 9/5/2012 by sixty8]


alloak41 - 9/5/2012 at 01:15 AM

No mention that the financial system was infected with subprime housing loans that went belly up, tanking the housing sector and the banking sector?

Thus far we've survived military operations, tax cuts, and entitlement programs without the banking system on the verge of collapse. Clearly, the subprime phenomenon was the root cause of the "mess" and I have seen no evidence that the GOP wants to encourage a repeat of that in any way whatsoever.

I find it interesting that Obama makes fun of the GOP for wanting to go backward and has nothing new to offer. Well, the Keystone Pipeline is a good example of something new and Romney will approve it his first week in office. Conversely, all Obama likely has to offer is more borrowing to spend on government programs. Now there's a new approach we've never seen.


Peachypetewi - 9/5/2012 at 01:29 AM

quote:
No mention that the financial system was infected with subprime housing loans that went belly up, tanking the housing sector and the banking sector?

Thus far we've survived military operations, tax cuts, and entitlement programs without the banking system on the verge of collapse. Clearly, the subprime phenomenon was the root cause of the "mess" and I have seen no evidence that the GOP wants to encourage a repeat of that in any way whatsoever.

I find it interesting that Obama makes fun of the GOP for wanting to go backward and has nothing new to offer. Well, the Keystone Pipeline is a good example of something new and Romney will approve it his first week in office. Conversely, all Obama likely has to offer is more borrowing to spend on government programs. Now there's a new approach we've never seen.


He's actually had plenty of new and good initiatives to offer but the worthless House GOP/Teabaggers filibuster and block them all.


Jerry - 9/5/2012 at 01:39 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I believe they are referring to the policies of having the Bush tax cuts while paying for 2 wars and also going on a spending spree - like the prescription drug plan with no funding .......and wondering why the deficit was rising....... but then you knew that........
Good points all Sang.

So if these things were all so damaging, why haven't actions been taken, discussed, planned, etc to change them? Why wasn't immediate action taken to pull the troops out of the wars? Why wasn't Medicare Part D de-funded or closed down? Why weren't the Bush rates reversed when the D's had the power to make changes in Obama's first two years? If the deficit were such a problem (Obama called it "unpatroitic" and pledged to cut in it half), why has nothing been done by this Administration to reduce it?

It's all well and good to keep blaming the past. After four years, the more important question is what has he done about it.


Correction. You mean first four months before seat changes gave the Republicans their filibuster machine.

http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-fo r-two.html

[Edited on 9/5/2012 by sixty8]


I guess the guy that wrote the article you keep referring to doesn't realize that 55 out of 100 is still a majority.


alloak41 - 9/5/2012 at 01:43 AM

quote:
quote:
No mention that the financial system was infected with subprime housing loans that went belly up, tanking the housing sector and the banking sector?

Thus far we've survived military operations, tax cuts, and entitlement programs without the banking system on the verge of collapse. Clearly, the subprime phenomenon was the root cause of the "mess" and I have seen no evidence that the GOP wants to encourage a repeat of that in any way whatsoever.

I find it interesting that Obama makes fun of the GOP for wanting to go backward and has nothing new to offer. Well, the Keystone Pipeline is a good example of something new and Romney will approve it his first week in office. Conversely, all Obama likely has to offer is more borrowing to spend on government programs. Now there's a new approach we've never seen.


He's actually had plenty of new and good initiatives to offer but the worthless House GOP/Teabaggers filibuster and block them all.


He inherited a bullet-proof majority and could have passed anything he wanted. What the hell happened?

On the balance of your comment, that's precisely what got those people elected and you say worthless for following through?


Sang - 9/5/2012 at 01:46 AM

quote:


I find it interesting that Obama makes fun of the GOP for wanting to go backward and has nothing new to offer. Well, the Keystone Pipeline is a good example of something new and Romney will approve it his first week in office. Conversely, all Obama likely has to offer is more borrowing to spend on government programs. Now there's a new approach we've never seen.




Another great idea. A pipeline carrying jet fuel just ruptured about 15 miles from my house - closing down a waterway and a major road for more than a week so they could clean it up. I'm sure Mitt will ensure the safety of the pipeline before building it - which is what Obama was trying to do.....

http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/14757741-418/route-83-closed-until-w ednesday-because-of-jet-fuel-spill.html

http://ens-newswire.com/2012/08/28/jet-fuel-spill-near-chicago-closes-canal -highway/


Sang - 9/5/2012 at 01:48 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
No mention that the financial system was infected with subprime housing loans that went belly up, tanking the housing sector and the banking sector?

Thus far we've survived military operations, tax cuts, and entitlement programs without the banking system on the verge of collapse. Clearly, the subprime phenomenon was the root cause of the "mess" and I have seen no evidence that the GOP wants to encourage a repeat of that in any way whatsoever.

I find it interesting that Obama makes fun of the GOP for wanting to go backward and has nothing new to offer. Well, the Keystone Pipeline is a good example of something new and Romney will approve it his first week in office. Conversely, all Obama likely has to offer is more borrowing to spend on government programs. Now there's a new approach we've never seen.


He's actually had plenty of new and good initiatives to offer but the worthless House GOP/Teabaggers filibuster and block them all.


He inherited a bullet-proof majority and could have passed anything he wanted. What the hell happened?

On the balance of your comment, that's precisely what got those people elected and you say worthless for following through?




Obtuse is as obtuse does.


Peachypetewi - 9/5/2012 at 10:31 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
No mention that the financial system was infected with subprime housing loans that went belly up, tanking the housing sector and the banking sector?

Thus far we've survived military operations, tax cuts, and entitlement programs without the banking system on the verge of collapse. Clearly, the subprime phenomenon was the root cause of the "mess" and I have seen no evidence that the GOP wants to encourage a repeat of that in any way whatsoever.

I find it interesting that Obama makes fun of the GOP for wanting to go backward and has nothing new to offer. Well, the Keystone Pipeline is a good example of something new and Romney will approve it his first week in office. Conversely, all Obama likely has to offer is more borrowing to spend on government programs. Now there's a new approach we've never seen.


He's actually had plenty of new and good initiatives to offer but the worthless House GOP/Teabaggers filibuster and block them all.


He inherited a bullet-proof majority and could have passed anything he wanted. What the hell happened?

On the balance of your comment, that's precisely what got those people elected and you say worthless for following through?


Oh really, then why does congress have a 10% approval rating? worst in the history of our country. Plus he never had a bullet proof majority, the spineless blue dogs bailed on him before he ever got a chance. And I thought those worthless lying House GOP toothless Teabillies were going to make jobs their number one priority? How many jobs bills have they passed? But I digress here are 3 bills the worthless ignorant House GOP Teabaggers blocked that were excellent ideas and would have added millions of jobs.

S3818- Stop tax breaks for corporations moving to low cost countries
S1723- A bill to put thousands of police, firefighters and public school teachers back to work.
S1769- A jobs bill that would have added 3 million new jobs.





[Edited on 9/5/2012 by Peachypetewi]


michaelsio - 9/5/2012 at 10:55 AM

quote:
No mention that the financial system was infected with subprime housing loans that went belly up, tanking the housing sector and the banking sector?

Thus far we've survived military operations, tax cuts, and entitlement programs without the banking system on the verge of collapse. Clearly, the subprime phenomenon was the root cause of the "mess" and I have seen no evidence that the GOP wants to encourage a repeat of that in any way whatsoever.

I find it interesting that Obama makes fun of the GOP for wanting to go backward and has nothing new to offer. Well, the Keystone Pipeline is a good example of something new and Romney will approve it his first week in office. Conversely, all Obama likely has to offer is more borrowing to spend on government programs. Now there's a new approach we've never seen.


It wasn't the sub-prime market per se, that got us in this mess, it was bundling those mortgages into a investment instrument and then creating multiple derivatives off of that instrument. If it was kept to just the mortgages, the banks could have survived those defaults.
Go ahead, mention re-instituting Glass-Steagall. See what the Republican reaction is.


alloak41 - 9/5/2012 at 02:04 PM

quote:
quote:
No mention that the financial system was infected with subprime housing loans that went belly up, tanking the housing sector and the banking sector?

Thus far we've survived military operations, tax cuts, and entitlement programs without the banking system on the verge of collapse. Clearly, the subprime phenomenon was the root cause of the "mess" and I have seen no evidence that the GOP wants to encourage a repeat of that in any way whatsoever.

I find it interesting that Obama makes fun of the GOP for wanting to go backward and has nothing new to offer. Well, the Keystone Pipeline is a good example of something new and Romney will approve it his first week in office. Conversely, all Obama likely has to offer is more borrowing to spend on government programs. Now there's a new approach we've never seen.


It wasn't the sub-prime market per se, that got us in this mess, it was bundling those mortgages into a investment instrument and then creating multiple derivatives off of that instrument.


They did, but it was a rise in subprime mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures that led to the decline of securities backed by said mortgages. At least we agree that it wasn't the war or tax cuts that caused the housing sector to tank.


Bhawk - 9/5/2012 at 02:37 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I believe they are referring to the policies of having the Bush tax cuts while paying for 2 wars and also going on a spending spree - like the prescription drug plan with no funding .......and wondering why the deficit was rising....... but then you knew that........
Good points all Sang.

So if these things were all so damaging, why haven't actions been taken, discussed, planned, etc to change them? Why wasn't immediate action taken to pull the troops out of the wars? Why wasn't Medicare Part D de-funded or closed down? Why weren't the Bush rates reversed when the D's had the power to make changes in Obama's first two years? If the deficit were such a problem (Obama called it "unpatroitic" and pledged to cut in it half), why has nothing been done by this Administration to reduce it?

It's all well and good to keep blaming the past. After four years, the more important question is what has he done about it.


Correction. You mean first four months before seat changes gave the Republicans their filibuster machine.

http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-fo r-two.html

[Edited on 9/5/2012 by sixty8]


I guess the guy that wrote the article you keep referring to doesn't realize that 55 out of 100 is still a majority.


Yes, but you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. 51 isn't the magic number in the Senate anymore, 60 is.

They (the collective of Dems and Repubs) changed the rules a few sessions ago, they don't even have to give one filibuster speech anymore. They file an "Intent to Filibuster" and that's it.

Until they change that rule, both sides will use it to the hilt.


Chain - 9/5/2012 at 03:23 PM

"Until they change that rule, both sides will use it to the hilt."

Which, sadly, is why it'll probably never change. Both sides like this little poison pill despite saying to the contrary when their party is in the majority. Should the Republicans take over the majority without the 60 seats, the Dems. will use it as much as the Republicans have in the last few sessions. And the gridlock will continue.


MartinD28 - 9/5/2012 at 04:11 PM

quote:
"Until they change that rule, both sides will use it to the hilt."

Which, sadly, is why it'll probably never change. Both sides like this little poison pill despite saying to the contrary when their party is in the majority. Should the Republicans take over the majority without the 60 seats, the Dems. will use it as much as the Republicans have in the last few sessions. And the gridlock will continue.


Then both sides can dance the Tea Party Tango.


dougrhon - 9/5/2012 at 04:16 PM

quote:
No mention that the financial system was infected with subprime housing loans that went belly up, tanking the housing sector and the banking sector?

Thus far we've survived military operations, tax cuts, and entitlement programs without the banking system on the verge of collapse. Clearly, the subprime phenomenon was the root cause of the "mess" and I have seen no evidence that the GOP wants to encourage a repeat of that in any way whatsoever.

I find it interesting that Obama makes fun of the GOP for wanting to go backward and has nothing new to offer. Well, the Keystone Pipeline is a good example of something new and Romney will approve it his first week in office. Conversely, all Obama likely has to offer is more borrowing to spend on government programs. Now there's a new approach we've never seen.


They would like the public to believe that George W. Bush invented the sub prime crisis himself with absolutely no help from anyone on the other side of the aisle. Of all the things Obama has failed to do or done wrong, his failure to address the root cause of this crisis by introducing appropriate legislation is the worst.


dougrhon - 9/5/2012 at 04:19 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I believe they are referring to the policies of having the Bush tax cuts while paying for 2 wars and also going on a spending spree - like the prescription drug plan with no funding .......and wondering why the deficit was rising....... but then you knew that........
Good points all Sang.

So if these things were all so damaging, why haven't actions been taken, discussed, planned, etc to change them? Why wasn't immediate action taken to pull the troops out of the wars? Why wasn't Medicare Part D de-funded or closed down? Why weren't the Bush rates reversed when the D's had the power to make changes in Obama's first two years? If the deficit were such a problem (Obama called it "unpatroitic" and pledged to cut in it half), why has nothing been done by this Administration to reduce it?

It's all well and good to keep blaming the past. After four years, the more important question is what has he done about it.


Correction. You mean first four months before seat changes gave the Republicans their filibuster machine.

http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-fo r-two.html

[Edited on 9/5/2012 by sixty8]


I guess the guy that wrote the article you keep referring to doesn't realize that 55 out of 100 is still a majority.


Yes, but you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. 51 isn't the magic number in the Senate anymore, 60 is.

They (the collective of Dems and Repubs) changed the rules a few sessions ago, they don't even have to give one filibuster speech anymore. They file an "Intent to Filibuster" and that's it.

Until they change that rule, both sides will use it to the hilt.


Which by the way subverts the intent of the Constitution and is a huge part of the reason that Congress is so dysfunctional today. I called for the abolition of the filibuster years ago and have not changed my tune no matter who has the majority.


Bhawk - 9/5/2012 at 04:31 PM

quote:
quote:
No mention that the financial system was infected with subprime housing loans that went belly up, tanking the housing sector and the banking sector?

Thus far we've survived military operations, tax cuts, and entitlement programs without the banking system on the verge of collapse. Clearly, the subprime phenomenon was the root cause of the "mess" and I have seen no evidence that the GOP wants to encourage a repeat of that in any way whatsoever.

I find it interesting that Obama makes fun of the GOP for wanting to go backward and has nothing new to offer. Well, the Keystone Pipeline is a good example of something new and Romney will approve it his first week in office. Conversely, all Obama likely has to offer is more borrowing to spend on government programs. Now there's a new approach we've never seen.


They would like the public to believe that George W. Bush invented the sub prime crisis himself with absolutely no help from anyone on the other side of the aisle. Of all the things Obama has failed to do or done wrong, his failure to address the root cause of this crisis by introducing appropriate legislation is the worst.


Dodd-Frank was what? Imaginary?


sixty8 - 9/5/2012 at 04:57 PM

quote:
"Until they change that rule, both sides will use it to the hilt."

Which, sadly, is why it'll probably never change. Both sides like this little poison pill despite saying to the contrary when their party is in the majority. Should the Republicans take over the majority without the 60 seats, the Dems. will use it as much as the Republicans have in the last few sessions. And the gridlock will continue.



Payback is a bi+ch!!! The Republicans will have no grounds to complain about it after their record av=buse of it. I don't want to hear one word about obstruction from the GOP if that happens.


sixty8 - 9/5/2012 at 05:04 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I believe they are referring to the policies of having the Bush tax cuts while paying for 2 wars and also going on a spending spree - like the prescription drug plan with no funding .......and wondering why the deficit was rising....... but then you knew that........
Good points all Sang.

So if these things were all so damaging, why haven't actions been taken, discussed, planned, etc to change them? Why wasn't immediate action taken to pull the troops out of the wars? Why wasn't Medicare Part D de-funded or closed down? Why weren't the Bush rates reversed when the D's had the power to make changes in Obama's first two years? If the deficit were such a problem (Obama called it "unpatroitic" and pledged to cut in it half), why has nothing been done by this Administration to reduce it?

It's all well and good to keep blaming the past. After four years, the more important question is what has he done about it.


Correction. You mean first four months before seat changes gave the Republicans their filibuster machine.

http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-fo r-two.html

[Edited on 9/5/2012 by sixty8]


I guess the guy that wrote the article you keep referring to doesn't realize that 55 out of 100 is still a majority.


Yes, but you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. 51 isn't the magic number in the Senate anymore, 60 is.

They (the collective of Dems and Repubs) changed the rules a few sessions ago, they don't even have to give one filibuster speech anymore. They file an "Intent to Filibuster" and that's it.

Until they change that rule, both sides will use it to the hilt.


Which by the way subverts the intent of the Constitution and is a huge part of the reason that Congress is so dysfunctional today. I called for the abolition of the filibuster years ago and have not changed my tune no matter who has the majority.


Well, I certainly don't expect them to just end it now right after the Republicans used it a record amount of times to sand bag the President over the last three and a half years. Plenty of proposed Romney legislation that I hope the Democrats block the same way the Republicans have blocked everything Obama has tried to do. What is good for one party is good for the other. I don't want to hear one word about obstruction if Romney wins and runs into a filibuster payback machine. The Dems can gaive the same exact reasons for filibustering everything Romney tries to pass.

I have a better idea!!! How about the day Romney is elected the Democrats have a meeting and emerge with their leader announcing that the Democrats number one priority over the next four years is to make Romney a one term President????? Sounds familiar to me???


Sang - 9/5/2012 at 05:09 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
No mention that the financial system was infected with subprime housing loans that went belly up, tanking the housing sector and the banking sector?

Thus far we've survived military operations, tax cuts, and entitlement programs without the banking system on the verge of collapse. Clearly, the subprime phenomenon was the root cause of the "mess" and I have seen no evidence that the GOP wants to encourage a repeat of that in any way whatsoever.

I find it interesting that Obama makes fun of the GOP for wanting to go backward and has nothing new to offer. Well, the Keystone Pipeline is a good example of something new and Romney will approve it his first week in office. Conversely, all Obama likely has to offer is more borrowing to spend on government programs. Now there's a new approach we've never seen.


They would like the public to believe that George W. Bush invented the sub prime crisis himself with absolutely no help from anyone on the other side of the aisle. Of all the things Obama has failed to do or done wrong, his failure to address the root cause of this crisis by introducing appropriate legislation is the worst.


Dodd-Frank was what? Imaginary?



...and didn't he try to put in an oversight group, and the republicans blocked putting Elizabeth Warren in charge of it?


alloak41 - 9/5/2012 at 05:46 PM

quote:
quote:
"Until they change that rule, both sides will use it to the hilt."

Which, sadly, is why it'll probably never change. Both sides like this little poison pill despite saying to the contrary when their party is in the majority. Should the Republicans take over the majority without the 60 seats, the Dems. will use it as much as the Republicans have in the last few sessions. And the gridlock will continue.



Payback is a bi+ch!!! The Republicans will have no grounds to complain about it after their record av=buse of it. I don't want to hear one word about obstruction from the GOP if that happens.


It seems that Democrats are having a hard enough time winning elections as it is. Blocking legislation that's favorable to the American people will get the Dems in just as much trouble as forcing legislation the majority didn't want. Probably even moreso if it's viewed as nothing more than "payback."


sixty8 - 9/5/2012 at 11:14 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
"Until they change that rule, both sides will use it to the hilt."

Which, sadly, is why it'll probably never change. Both sides like this little poison pill despite saying to the contrary when their party is in the majority. Should the Republicans take over the majority without the 60 seats, the Dems. will use it as much as the Republicans have in the last few sessions. And the gridlock will continue.



Payback is a bi+ch!!! The Republicans will have no grounds to complain about it after their record av=buse of it. I don't want to hear one word about obstruction from the GOP if that happens.


It seems that Democrats are having a hard enough time winning elections as it is. Blocking legislation that's favorable to the American people will get the Dems in just as much trouble as forcing legislation the majority didn't want. Probably even moreso if it's viewed as nothing more than "payback."


LOL!!! Blocking legislation that is favorable to the country????? What if the Democrats deem any and all legislation pushed by Romney not to be favorable to the American people just as the Republicans have deemed any and all Obama legislation to be unfavorable and have sand bagged him on it???? Seriously dude??? I can hear you complaining about obstruction already. Sorry but if your party can filibuster all Obama legislation because they planned on sand bagging him from day one then what is the difference if the Democrats do the same??? Their aproval rating of less than 20% can't get any worse. If it was good enough for the Republicans to meet and decide to sandbag everything Obama tried to do on day one after his election then it is fair game for the Dems to do the same thing if they think going back to the Bush policies will hurt us. Tit for tat. The Republicans refused to compromise on anything and the Dems can do exactly the same.

[Edited on 9/6/2012 by sixty8]


alloak41 - 9/6/2012 at 03:16 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
"Until they change that rule, both sides will use it to the hilt."

Which, sadly, is why it'll probably never change. Both sides like this little poison pill despite saying to the contrary when their party is in the majority. Should the Republicans take over the majority without the 60 seats, the Dems. will use it as much as the Republicans have in the last few sessions. And the gridlock will continue.



Payback is a bi+ch!!! The Republicans will have no grounds to complain about it after their record av=buse of it. I don't want to hear one word about obstruction from the GOP if that happens.


It seems that Democrats are having a hard enough time winning elections as it is. Blocking legislation that's favorable to the American people will get the Dems in just as much trouble as forcing legislation the majority didn't want. Probably even moreso if it's viewed as nothing more than "payback."


LOL!!! Blocking legislation that is favorable to the country????? What if the Democrats deem any and all legislation pushed by Romney not to be favorable to the American people just as the Republicans have deemed any and all Obama legislation to be unfavorable and have sand bagged him on it???? Seriously dude??? I can hear you complaining about obstruction again. Sorry but if your party can filibuster all Obama legislation because they planned on sand bagging him from day one then what is the difference if the Democrats do the same??? Their aproval rating of less than 20% can't get any worse. If it was good enough for the Republicans to meet and decide to sandbag everything Obama tried to do on day one after his election then it is fair game for the Dems to do the same thing if they think going back to the Bush policies will hurt us. Tit for tat. The Republicans refused to compromise on anything and the Dems can do exactly the same.


Don't get me wrong, it's not going to bother me one way or the other. If the Democrats decide it's wise to go into payback mode and play tit for tat, go for it. As stated before, I believe there are positive benefits to gridlock.

What I don't get is people like yourself, constantly railing against obstruction and gridlock, then urging and encouraging more of the same. Sorry, but that's downright weird.



[Edited on 9/6/2012 by alloak41]


alloak41 - 9/6/2012 at 03:54 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
No mention that the financial system was infected with subprime housing loans that went belly up, tanking the housing sector and the banking sector?

Thus far we've survived military operations, tax cuts, and entitlement programs without the banking system on the verge of collapse. Clearly, the subprime phenomenon was the root cause of the "mess" and I have seen no evidence that the GOP wants to encourage a repeat of that in any way whatsoever.

I find it interesting that Obama makes fun of the GOP for wanting to go backward and has nothing new to offer. Well, the Keystone Pipeline is a good example of something new and Romney will approve it his first week in office. Conversely, all Obama likely has to offer is more borrowing to spend on government programs. Now there's a new approach we've never seen.


They would like the public to believe that George W. Bush invented the sub prime crisis himself with absolutely no help from anyone on the other side of the aisle. Of all the things Obama has failed to do or done wrong, his failure to address the root cause of this crisis by introducing appropriate legislation is the worst.


Dodd-Frank was what? Imaginary?


The time and place for Dodd-Frank was the early to mid-2000's when some wise individuals started sounding alarms, only to be called racists - then ignored.

True to form, when the bubble was inflating the government only encouraged more of what was blowing it up. And now that housing inventories are high and prices have dropped, they come in and make the buying process more restrictive. Makes a lot of sense.


Sang - 9/6/2012 at 04:07 AM

So it was Bush's fault?


So what do you want? You complained he didn't do anything, somebody points out that he did, and you complain that it came at the wrong time......


alloak41 - 9/6/2012 at 04:11 AM

quote:
So what do you want? You complained he didn't do anything


I did? Where?


sixty8 - 9/6/2012 at 04:19 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
"Until they change that rule, both sides will use it to the hilt."

Which, sadly, is why it'll probably never change. Both sides like this little poison pill despite saying to the contrary when their party is in the majority. Should the Republicans take over the majority without the 60 seats, the Dems. will use it as much as the Republicans have in the last few sessions. And the gridlock will continue.



Payback is a bi+ch!!! The Republicans will have no grounds to complain about it after their record av=buse of it. I don't want to hear one word about obstruction from the GOP if that happens.


It seems that Democrats are having a hard enough time winning elections as it is. Blocking legislation that's favorable to the American people will get the Dems in just as much trouble as forcing legislation the majority didn't want. Probably even moreso if it's viewed as nothing more than "payback."


LOL!!! Blocking legislation that is favorable to the country????? What if the Democrats deem any and all legislation pushed by Romney not to be favorable to the American people just as the Republicans have deemed any and all Obama legislation to be unfavorable and have sand bagged him on it???? Seriously dude??? I can hear you complaining about obstruction again. Sorry but if your party can filibuster all Obama legislation because they planned on sand bagging him from day one then what is the difference if the Democrats do the same??? Their aproval rating of less than 20% can't get any worse. If it was good enough for the Republicans to meet and decide to sandbag everything Obama tried to do on day one after his election then it is fair game for the Dems to do the same thing if they think going back to the Bush policies will hurt us. Tit for tat. The Republicans refused to compromise on anything and the Dems can do exactly the same.


Don't get me wrong, it's not going to bother me one way or the other. If the Democrats decide it's wise to go into payback mode and play tit for tat, go for it. As stated before, I believe there are positive benefits to gridlock.

What I don't get is people like yourself, constantly railing against obstruction and gridlock, then urging and encouraging more of the same. Sorry, but that's downright weird.



[Edited on 9/6/2012 by alloak41]


Was it not weird of the GOP to meet and then proclaim that their number one priority over the next four years was to Make Obama a one term President which basically meant we aren't gonna pass anything Obama will get credit for even if we would have passed some of the same legislation if it were coming from a Republican????? That is pretty weird of a political party. Would be just as weird if the Dems did it but no more weird. I don't see why it would bother you that some of us would like to see all of Romney's proposed legislation blocked. You didn't seem to mind the Republicans sand bagging???


alloak41 - 9/6/2012 at 04:23 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
"Until they change that rule, both sides will use it to the hilt."

Which, sadly, is why it'll probably never change. Both sides like this little poison pill despite saying to the contrary when their party is in the majority. Should the Republicans take over the majority without the 60 seats, the Dems. will use it as much as the Republicans have in the last few sessions. And the gridlock will continue.



Payback is a bi+ch!!! The Republicans will have no grounds to complain about it after their record av=buse of it. I don't want to hear one word about obstruction from the GOP if that happens.


It seems that Democrats are having a hard enough time winning elections as it is. Blocking legislation that's favorable to the American people will get the Dems in just as much trouble as forcing legislation the majority didn't want. Probably even moreso if it's viewed as nothing more than "payback."


LOL!!! Blocking legislation that is favorable to the country????? What if the Democrats deem any and all legislation pushed by Romney not to be favorable to the American people just as the Republicans have deemed any and all Obama legislation to be unfavorable and have sand bagged him on it???? Seriously dude??? I can hear you complaining about obstruction again. Sorry but if your party can filibuster all Obama legislation because they planned on sand bagging him from day one then what is the difference if the Democrats do the same??? Their aproval rating of less than 20% can't get any worse. If it was good enough for the Republicans to meet and decide to sandbag everything Obama tried to do on day one after his election then it is fair game for the Dems to do the same thing if they think going back to the Bush policies will hurt us. Tit for tat. The Republicans refused to compromise on anything and the Dems can do exactly the same.


Don't get me wrong, it's not going to bother me one way or the other. If the Democrats decide it's wise to go into payback mode and play tit for tat, go for it. As stated before, I believe there are positive benefits to gridlock.

What I don't get is people like yourself, constantly railing against obstruction and gridlock, then urging and encouraging more of the same. Sorry, but that's downright weird.



[Edited on 9/6/2012 by alloak41]


Was it not weird of the GOP to meet and then proclaim that their number one priority over the next four years was to Make Obama a one term President which basically meant we aren't gonna pass anything Obama will get credit for even if we would have passed some of the same legislation if it were coming from a Republican????? That is pretty weird of a political party. Would be just as weird if the Dems did it but no more weird. I don't see why it would bother you that some of us would like to see all of Romney's proposed legislation blocked. You didn't seem to mind the Republicans sand bagging???


Like I said before, it won't bother me one way or another. Sandbag away.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://allmanbrothers.com/

Url of this website:
http://allmanbrothers.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=125984