Your thoughts on Obama's economic record.

[Kryzbyn]

ciretose wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Yeah Meat I read it and I hear ya. Obama wasn't the only one who was naive to think it would work. About 51% of America was too, I reckon.

************

So, when I say "that's not compromise" and what I get in response is "yeah but republicans do it too", how does this correct that it's not compromise?

The assertion was not that Republicans try to compromise all the time, iirc.

Define compromise.

I would define agreeing to a republican proposal from the 90's regarding healthcare as compromise.

I would say having 1/3 of the stimulus package come in the form of tax cuts as compromise.

But how do you define compromise?

Dictionary definition works fine, but this doesn't answer my question.

And, there is a difference between compromise and placating people with things now that you can stop later when you have a majority.

[Mandor]

Scott Betts wrote:

Mandor wrote:

Neither side is interested in compromise

The Republican party does not want compromise. They do not want everyone to be involved in the process. They do not want a discussion of opinions. They have their goals, and they will accept no action which does not further them.

Odd how you perfectly described the healthcare bill - except that you got the party wrong.

But at least you have the democratic party's spin right. "Democrats bend over backwards to compromise. Republicans never compromise." Sure, Massachusets didn't buy that lie and the super majority disappeared, but if you keep repeating it, you might con some people into believing it.

[ciretose]

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:

Obama = $5 Trillion more national debt ( with an additional 1.3 Trillion this year and no end to rising debt anywhere in sight), 3+ years of over 8% unemployment (the longest since the Great Depression), a Democratic Party controlled Senate which hasn't even passed a budget in two years-forcing the nation to operate from one fiscal crisis to another. This is just a short list of his failings. He came to the Presidency with little experience in running anything: and his administration has been a major disaster. God save the United States if he is re-elected.

And that unemployment rate peaked when exactly?

And the first budget was passed by who exactly?

8 years of Bush took a surplus to the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression.

You want to go back to that why?

[Kryzbyn]

Not giving Obama a second term =/= going back to 8 years of Bush.

[ciretose]

Mandor wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Mandor wrote:

Neither side is interested in compromise

The Republican party does not want compromise. They do not want everyone to be involved in the process. They do not want a discussion of opinions. They have their goals, and they will accept no action which does not further them.

Odd how you perfectly described the healthcare bill - except that you got the party wrong.

But at least you have the democratic party's spin right. "Democrats bend over backwards to compromise. Republicans never compromise." Sure, Massachusets didn't but that lie and the super majority disappeared, but if you keep repeating it, you might con some people into believing it.

Do you want me to list off the Republicans who advocated for the universal mandate?

"Obamacare" is Romneycare, is what Gingrich and Dole proposed when Clinton tried to pass a single payer system.

Look it up.

[ciretose]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Not giving Obama a second term =/= going back to 8 years of Bush.

Have you looked at Romney's proposals regarding deregulation of the banking industry that got us into this mess?

Jamie Dimon, the golden boy genius who has been bashing reform, just lost 2 billion dollars on credit default swaps, which are exactly the things that caused the financial collapse.

Romney is worse than Bush. Bush had good intentions and realized too late that Cheney was wrong. His last few years he actually tried to come back to the center on some issues, but it was too late.

Romney actually believes this stuff.

[Mandor]

ciretose wrote:

"Obamacare" is Romneycare

That's a lie. And a pretty obvious one when you compare the bills.

Pelosi didn't say to read Romneycare because they wanted to pass the same thing and they wanted it out in the open for everyone to read and understand. No. She said the bill had to be passed in order to learn what was in it. Democrats needed to keep it hidden until they had coerced/bribed enough senators to pass it.

[ciretose]

Mandor wrote:

ciretose wrote:

"Obamacare" is Romneycare

That's a lie. And a pretty obvious one when you compare the bills.

Pelosi didn't say to read Romneycare because they wanted to pass the same thing and they wanted it out in the open for everyone to read and understand. No. She said the bill had to be passed in order to learn what was in it. Democrats needed to keep it hidden until they had coerced/bribed enough senators to pass it.

Really.

[Kryzbyn]

4 years before the housing market came to a crash, republicans wanted more oversight and regulative authority over Freddie and Fannie Mac. It was shot down because Frank and Raines blew smoke up everyone's ass and said it wasn't necessary.
Then, after the s*&& hits the fan, Pelosi gets on TV and says it was the Republicans asking for deregulation that was the cause. Isn't that rich.

Look it up.

[BigNorseWolf]

[That's a lie. And a pretty obvious one when you compare the bills. ]

To be a lie it needs to be false and be known as false.

Can you tell me precisely what the difference is between the state government and the federal government requiring that you buy healthcare insurance?

[Martin Kauffman 530]

Obama and the Democrats keep on blaming Bush. Well, Bush is long gone and they have had over three years to "straighten out" Bush's supposed mistakes. For a portion of this time, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency. And the country remains in the grip of the worst economic times since the Great Depression with little improvement and no end in sight. Obama has failed. Wake up- the nation is headed the way of Greece: towards insolvency, inflation and massive upheaval. The longer we wait to get our house in order, the more of a crisis will incur.

[ciretose]

Kryzbyn wrote:

4 years before the housing market came to a crash, republicans wanted more oversight and regulative authority over Freddie and Fannie Mac. It was shot down because Frank and Raines blew smoke up everyone's ass and said it wasn't necessary.

Then, after the s~$# hits the fan, Pelosi gets on TV and says it was the Republicans asking for deregulation that was the cause. Isn't that rich.

Look it up.

Bull.

The Republicans were trying kill Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to shift the market over to the private sector.

The repeal of The Glass–Steagall Act was the problem. That isn't to say Fannie and Freddie were not part of the problem, but most of the things they did wrong occured under the Bush Administration wht a Republican House and Senate that could have and should have provided the oversight they said they were denied later when the stuff hit the fan.

Read something other than Drudge and Red State..

[ciretose]

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:

Obama and the Democrats keep on blaming Bush. Well, Bush is long gone and they have had over three years to "straighten out" Bush's supposed mistakes. For a portion of this time, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency. And the country remains in the grip of the worst economic times since the Great Depression with little improvement and no end in sight. Obama has failed. Wake up- the nation is headed the way of Greece: towards insolvency, inflation and massive upheaval. The longer we wait to get our house in order, the more of a crisis will incur.

Supposed mistakes? Seriously? When do you think the economy collapsed, exactly?

[Comrade Anklebiter]

ciretose wrote:

Read something other than Drudge and Red State..

Yeah, I mean, seriously, dude.

[Martin Kauffman 530]

Ciretose: I am not trying to say that the Republicans are now and always have been pure and right. Neither am I saying that the Democrats are now and always have been unholy and wrong. But it is well past time the nation take the actions and sacrifices needed to bring itself back towards more fiscal stability. Just as an individual cannot continually spend and spend more and more, maximizing many credit cards until bakruptcy is unavoidable, the nation cannot blindly go down the path of reckless and ever increasing spending if it is to avoid turmoil. Obama has not only not demonstrated that he can rein in spenging to any reasonablre level; but his actual spending deficits and his own administrations projected future spending deficits make it clear that he has only made this problem worse, not better. Look at Greece, where the results of continual overspending are now beginning to come due. That is why I will not vote for Obama- because I feel his administration has made matters worse, not better for the country.

[thejeff]

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:

Ciretose: I am not trying to say that the Republicans are now and always have been pure and right. Neither am I saying that the Democrats are now and always have been unholy and wrong. But it is well past time the nation take the actions and sacrifices needed to bring itself back towards more fiscal stability. Just as an individual cannot continually spend and spend more and more, maximizing many credit cards until bakruptcy is unavoidable, the nation cannot blindly go down the path of reckless and ever increasing spending if it is to avoid turmoil. Obama has not only not demonstrated that he can rein in spenging to any reasonablre level; but his actual spending deficits and his own administrations projected future spending deficits make it clear that he has only made this problem worse, not better. Look at Greece, where the results of continual overspending are now beginning to come due. That is why I will not vote for Obama- because I feel his administration has made matters worse, not better for the country.

Look at Britain where austerity measures have thrown the economy back into recession.

Government budgeting isn't like an individual's budget. You can't cut your way out of recession.
Every cut in government spending weakens the economy. Laying off government workers raises unemployment, both directly and with the add-on effect of the lost spending of those workers.

The main causes of the deficit are the Bush tax cuts (which Obama renewed, partly as a deal to extend unemployment benefits and partly because he'd promised not to raise taxes on those making under $250K), spending on the wars, revenue lost to the recession and finally (and only in the short term) the stimulus and other measures to deal with the recession.
Medicare is problem in long-term projections, but that's another story.

Getting spending under control, especially if we do it without touching military spending as most Republicans and some Democrats want, would throw us into a far worse recession than we've seen in decades.

[Grey Lensman]

The time to make austerity moves is when you have large budget surpluses. It's also the time that the politicians will refuse to even consider it, as they would rather pass big tax cuts/new social programs so they can go back home and trumpet about what a great job they are doing.

[Scott Betts]

Mandor wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Mandor wrote:

Neither side is interested in compromise

The Republican party does not want compromise. They do not want everyone to be involved in the process. They do not want a discussion of opinions. They have their goals, and they will accept no action which does not further them.

Odd how you perfectly described the healthcare bill - except that you got the party wrong.

But at least you have the democratic party's spin right. "Democrats bend over backwards to compromise. Republicans never compromise." Sure, Massachusets didn't buy that lie and the super majority disappeared, but if you keep repeating it, you might con some people into believing it.

My advice to you is to not even try what you just tried, here. It will not work. You cannot twist this. You cannot dilute this. You cannot cover the parts you don't like up. The people you support are not good people. They do not have the interests of their country at heart. Stop supporting them. Stop encouraging them. Stop excusing them. Until you stop, you are part of the problem and we will treat you accordingly.

[thejeff]

Grey Lensman wrote:

The time to make austerity moves is when you have large budget surpluses. It's also the time that the politicians will refuse to even consider it, as they would rather pass big tax cuts/new social programs so they can go back home and trumpet about what a great job they are doing.

More accurately, the time to make austerity moves is when the economy is booming. Government's role should counter-cyclical, supporting the economy in bad times and reigning in the economy when it bubbles.

Anyone remember back at the start of Bush's first term, when we were actually running a surplus and the claim that meant taxes were too high and being stolen from the American taxpayer. Of course when taxes were cut and the economy crashed we needed tax cuts to stimulate the economy.
No matter the problem, tax cuts are the solution!

[TheWhiteknife]

ciretose wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Not giving Obama a second term =/= going back to 8 years of Bush.

Have you looked at Romney's proposals regarding deregulation of the banking industry that got us into this mess?

Jamie Dimon, the golden boy genius who has been bashing reform, just lost 2 billion dollars on credit default swaps, which are exactly the things that caused the financial collapse.

Romney is worse than Bush. Bush had good intentions and realized too late that Cheney was wrong. His last few years he actually tried to come back to the center on some issues, but it was too late.

Romney actually believes this stuff.

I agree, but also remember: Not giving Obama a second term =/= electing Romney

[TheWhiteknife]

thejeff wrote:

Grey Lensman wrote:

The time to make austerity moves is when you have large budget surpluses. It's also the time that the politicians will refuse to even consider it, as they would rather pass big tax cuts/new social programs so they can go back home and trumpet about what a great job they are doing.

More accurately, the time to make austerity moves is when the economy is booming. Government's role should counter-cyclical, supporting the economy in bad times and reigning in the economy when it bubbles.

Anyone remember back at the start of Bush's first term, when we were actually running a surplus and the claim that meant taxes were too high and being stolen from the American taxpayer. Of course when taxes were cut and the economy crashed we needed tax cuts to stimulate the economy.
No matter the problem, tax cuts are the solution!

The tax cuts werent the problem. It was the extra spending on wars and spying on citizens.

[Martin Kauffman 530]

Thejeff- "You can't cut your way out of recession" is a Keynsian formula for neverending increasing government spending. No nation or people can ever get everything they desire. And yes, even though nations can print unbacked money while individuals can't, after a point it is realized that the printed money is worth less and less, until it is finally worthless. Essentially, high inflation ensues, which is what happened in Germany to the Weimar Republic. There, people could walk around with a wheelbarrowful of printed money which could buy a loaf of bread. And you know how that ended. A totalitarian dictatorship and Adolf Hitler... That is why I will not vote for Obama. Unlimited debt and spending, with the implicit promise that people can have all that they can ever desire, is a good intentioned fantasy path towards national ruin.

[Kryzbyn]

ciretose wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

4 years before the housing market came to a crash, republicans wanted more oversight and regulative authority over Freddie and Fannie Mac. It was shot down because Frank and Raines blew smoke up everyone's ass and said it wasn't necessary.

Then, after the s~$# hits the fan, Pelosi gets on TV and says it was the Republicans asking for deregulation that was the cause. Isn't that rich.

Look it up.

Bull.

The Republicans were trying kill Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to shift the market over to the private sector.

The repeal of The Glass–Steagall Act was the problem. That isn't to say Fannie and Freddie were not part of the problem, but most of the things they did wrong occured under the Bush Administration wht a Republican House and Senate that could have and should have provided the oversight they said they were denied later when the stuff hit the fan.

Read something other than Drudge and Red State..

Like this part?

Wikipedia wrote:

For example, in 2003, the Bush administration, recognizing that the current regulators for Fannie and Freddie were inadequate, proposed that a new agency be created to regulate the GSE's. This new agency would have been tasked specifically with setting capital reserve requirements, (removing that authority from Congress), approving new lines business for the GSE's, and most importantly, evaluating the risk in their ballooning portfolios. It was in specific response to this regulatory effort that Barney Frank made his now infamous statement "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." [71] Had this new regulatory agency been put in place in 2003, it likely would have uncovered the accounting fraud regarding executive bonuses which was occurring at that time at Fannie Mae. This accounting scandal would later force the resignation of Franklin Raines and others executives. [72] This new agency may also have slowed or stopped the further movement of the entire mortgage industry into subprime loans by exposing the full extent of the risks then taken by Fannie and Freddie, who at this time, controlled nearly half of all subprime loans being issued.

Efforts to control GSE were thwarted by intense lobbying by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[73] In April 2005, Secretary of the Treasury John Snow repeated call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." Then house Minority Leader Harry Reid rejected legislation saying " we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." [74] A 2005 Republican effort for comprehensive GSE reform was threatened with filibuster by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT).[75]

[thejeff]

TheWhiteknife wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Not giving Obama a second term =/= going back to 8 years of Bush.

Have you looked at Romney's proposals regarding deregulation of the banking industry that got us into this mess?

Jamie Dimon, the golden boy genius who has been bashing reform, just lost 2 billion dollars on credit default swaps, which are exactly the things that caused the financial collapse.

Romney is worse than Bush. Bush had good intentions and realized too late that Cheney was wrong. His last few years he actually tried to come back to the center on some issues, but it was too late.

Romney actually believes this stuff.

I agree, but also remember: Not giving Obama a second term =/= electing Romney

Well, yeah it pretty much is. Barring one of them dieing betweeen now and November, one of them will be elected.

Or are you still buying into Paulist fantasies of GOP delegate shenanigans? Or is there another miracle plan I haven't heard of?

[thejeff]

TheWhiteknife wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Grey Lensman wrote:

The time to make austerity moves is when you have large budget surpluses. It's also the time that the politicians will refuse to even consider it, as they would rather pass big tax cuts/new social programs so they can go back home and trumpet about what a great job they are doing.

More accurately, the time to make austerity moves is when the economy is booming. Government's role should counter-cyclical, supporting the economy in bad times and reigning in the economy when it bubbles.

Anyone remember back at the start of Bush's first term, when we were actually running a surplus and the claim that meant taxes were too high and being stolen from the American taxpayer. Of course when taxes were cut and the economy crashed we needed tax cuts to stimulate the economy.
No matter the problem, tax cuts are the solution!

The tax cuts werent the problem. It was the extra spending on wars and spying on citizens.

As far as the deficit goes, the tax cuts were and are a larger problem. The spying doesn't noticeably affect the deficit.

There are other problems than fiscal ones with both the wars and the spying, but that's not what I was addressing.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

thejeff wrote:

'White Knife" wrote:

I agree, but also remember: Not giving Obama a second term =/= electing Romney

Well, yeah it pretty much is. Barring one of them dieing betweeen now and November, one of them will be elected.

Or are you still buying into Paulist fantasies of GOP delegate shenanigans? Or is there another miracle plan I haven't heard of?

Now, now, boys.

Let Comrade Knife have his fantasies that Ron Paul has a snowball's chance in hell and let Comrade Jeff have his fantasies that voting for Obama is anything other than a vote for the rule of bloated plutocrats.

[thejeff]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

thejeff wrote:

'White Knife" wrote:

I agree, but also remember: Not giving Obama a second term =/= electing Romney

Well, yeah it pretty much is. Barring one of them dieing betweeen now and November, one of them will be elected.

Or are you still buying into Paulist fantasies of GOP delegate shenanigans? Or is there another miracle plan I haven't heard of?

Now, now, boys.

Let Comrade Knife have his fantasies that Ron Paul has a snowball's chance in hell and let Comrade Jeff have his fantasies that voting for Obama is anything other than a vote for the rule of bloated plutocrats.

I'm not prepared to give up on democracy yet and I do see a difference between the parties. I have a lot of problems with Obama and the Democrats in general, but I think the path to disaster will be slower with them.

That gives us more time to try to come up with an alternative. To shift the Democrats back to a saner course or build a movement that can force them. As far as I'm concerned the GOP is a lost cause. The Democrats might be salvageable.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

I'm sorry. Should I have added a :P?

[GentleGiant]

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:

Thejeff- "You can't cut your way out of recession" is a Keynsian formula for neverending increasing government spending. No nation or people can ever get everything they desire. And yes, even though nations can print unbacked money while individuals can't, after a point it is realized that the printed money is worth less and less, until it is finally worthless. Essentially, high inflation ensues, which is what happened in Germany to the Weimar Republic. There, people could walk around with a wheelbarrowful of printed money which could buy a loaf of bread. And you know how that ended. A totalitarian dictatorship and Adolf Hitler... That is why I will not vote for Obama. Unlimited debt and spending, with the implicit promise that people can have all that they can ever desire, is a good intentioned fantasy path towards national ruin.

Wow, so a vote for Obama is going to set the US on a course for Nazi-Germany part II?

Seriously, I am baffled by the (tea-party?) rhetoric that any government spending is bad and should be cut. Government spending isn't a uniform thing. There's a huge difference in putting money into buying bombs, destroying other nations and then employing more teachers or providing grants to college students. One thing helps the economy, the other doesn't.

[Grey Lensman]

TheWhiteKnife wrote:

The tax cuts werent the problem. It was the extra spending on wars and spying on citizens.

The spying part is still there, and unlikely to end no matter who wins the election.

[GentleGiant]

Mandor wrote:

And while Obama promised to work with Republicans during the campaign, you can't blame him for not following through when the election gave him a super majority for a short time (until Massachusetts voiced their opinion on what the super majority was doing). Unfortunately, that first year set the tone and made compromise nearly impossible afterwards.

A super majority on paper only. There were dissenters within the Democratic party (e.g. Blue Dogs) - which has always been their downfall. They don't stick together and vote the party line as the Republicans do when it comes to lots of issues.

[TheWhiteknife]

Grey Lensman wrote:

TheWhiteKnife wrote:

The tax cuts werent the problem. It was the extra spending on wars and spying on citizens.

The spying part is still there, and unlikely to end no matter who wins the election.

And so are the wars.

[Mandor]

ciretose wrote:

Really.

Yes really. There are a lot of similarities between the bills, just like there are a lot of similarities between D&D 3.5 and 4E, but the 2000 page Obamacare is not the same bill as the 70 page Romneycare.

[ciretose]

TheWhiteknife wrote:

I agree, but also remember: Not giving Obama a second term =/= electing Romney

At this point, functionally it does.

I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[TheWhiteknife]

thejeff wrote:

TheWhiteknife wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Not giving Obama a second term =/= going back to 8 years of Bush.

Have you looked at Romney's proposals regarding deregulation of the banking industry that got us into this mess?

Jamie Dimon, the golden boy genius who has been bashing reform, just lost 2 billion dollars on credit default swaps, which are exactly the things that caused the financial collapse.

Romney is worse than Bush. Bush had good intentions and realized too late that Cheney was wrong. His last few years he actually tried to come back to the center on some issues, but it was too late.

Romney actually believes this stuff.

I agree, but also remember: Not giving Obama a second term =/= electing Romney

Well, yeah it pretty much is. Barring one of them dieing betweeen now and November, one of them will be elected.

Or are you still buying into Paulist fantasies of GOP delegate shenanigans? Or is there another miracle plan I haven't heard of?

Sure. I like words put in my mouth as much as the next guy. Or you know I could be referring to the Greens or The Libertarians or The Communists. You say you have problems with the Democrats in general? Then quit voting for them! If the best we can hope for is Romney vs Obama, thats not much of a choice is it? Sure they might differ on .5% of their beliefs, but what about the other 99.5%?

EDit- or you could keep voting for the lesser of two evils and keep wondering why you keep ending up with evil. Or are you still holding on to your fantasies that the Democrats care about the working classes?

[ciretose]

@Kryzbyn

Yes. Now ask yourself "Who was in charge of the house, senate, and supreme court in 2003..."

Then go read the part about Financial Derivative Regulation / Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and ask yourself the same question.

[Mandor]

GentleGiant wrote:

A super majority on paper only. There were dissenters within the Democratic party (e.g. Blue Dogs) - which has always been their downfall. They don't stick together and vote the party line as the Republicans do when it comes to lots of issues.

The Republicans have a few willing to cross party lines. Olympia Snow comes to mind. Unfortunately, the moderates are fast disappearing from Washington.

Pelosi has shown an impressive ability to keep her house members together. Both as minority leader before 2006 and now as well as her time as speaker in between. Boehner wishes he had half her ability.

[bugleyman]

thejeff wrote:

No matter the problem, tax cuts are the solution!

Indeed. A childish solution for childish intellects. The real world s just so darn complicated...

[thejeff]

TheWhiteknife wrote:

thejeff wrote:

TheWhiteknife wrote:

I agree, but also remember: Not giving Obama a second term =/= electing Romney

Well, yeah it pretty much is. Barring one of them dieing betweeen now and November, one of them will be elected.

Or are you still buying into Paulist fantasies of GOP delegate shenanigans? Or is there another miracle plan I haven't heard of?

Sure. I like words put in my mouth as much as the next guy. Or you know I could be referring to the Greens or The Libertarians or The Communists. You say you have problems with the Democrats in general? Then quit voting for them! If the best we can hope for is Romney vs Obama, thats not much of a choice is it? Sure they might differ on .5% of their beliefs, but what about the other 99.5%?

EDit- or you could keep voting for the lesser of two evils and keep wondering why you keep ending up with evil. Or are you still holding on to your fantasies that the Democrats care about the working classes?

Sure, there are other fantasies you could cling to. Neither the Greens or the Libertarians or the Communists or any of the other even less known parties or right-in candidates have the ghost of a chance. I could vote for them, and have in the past and in local elections, but as I said, barring a death either Romney or Obama will be president come 2013.

Not giving Obama a second term == electing Romney

You can not vote or cast a protest vote, but that doesn't change the equation.

[thejeff]

Mandor wrote:

GentleGiant wrote:

A super majority on paper only. There were dissenters within the Democratic party (e.g. Blue Dogs) - which has always been their downfall. They don't stick together and vote the party line as the Republicans do when it comes to lots of issues.

The Republicans have a few willing to cross party lines. Olympia Snow comes to mind. Unfortunately, the moderates are fast disappearing from Washington.

Pelosi has shown an impressive ability to keep her house members together. Both as minority leader before 2006 and now as well as her time as speaker in between. Boehner wishes he had half her ability.

And Olympia Snow is retiring. Unless things change I doubt Susan Collins will run again either.

Dick Lugar was just primaried out for being too compromising!

I'll admit few Democrats have crossed party lines in actual votes since they took control of Congress, but that's because they've controlled the agenda. Plenty of compromises have been made to get both the conservative Democrats on board and to pick up enough Republicans to reach cloture.

Pelosi's (and Reid's) problems have been with the moderate/conservative members, Blue Dogs and others.
Boehner's problems have been with tea party caucus. He can't deliver enough of their votes to make any kind of compromise. Even when he thinks he can, he often can't pull the deal off at the last minute.

If it wasn't so serious, it would be almost funny watching the Republican Party eat itself. They made a deal with the fundamentalists years ago and never intended to pay off. Now half their new members and much of their base are actually true believers. The cynical bastards riding the tiger know they're not actually in control anymore and don't know how to get off.

[Dragnmoon]

I really wish more people would Blame Congress and less the President *Any President* for economical problems.

Congress has a lot more direct control on the economy then the President.

[thejeff]

Dragnmoon wrote:

I really wish more people would Blame Congress and less the President *Any President* for economical problems.

Congress has a lot more direct control on the economy then the President.

More people do.

Congress's approval rating is abysmal. Far, far below Obama's.

[Sanakht Inaros]

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:

Obama and the Democrats keep on blaming Bush. Well, Bush is long gone and they have had over three years to "straighten out" Bush's supposed mistakes. For a portion of this time, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency. And the country remains in the grip of the worst economic times since the Great Depression with little improvement and no end in sight. Obama has failed. Wake up- the nation is headed the way of Greece: towards insolvency, inflation and massive upheaval. The longer we wait to get our house in order, the more of a crisis will incur.

At first I was incredulous. Then I started laughing. First: Obama tried to compromise with the GOP. They kept moving the goalposts. Had he more cajones, he and the Dems could have passed a budget. Second: the GOP continues to move the goalposts and refuses to uphold their end of any "compromise". Third: The debt crisis in Greece was helped by the same Wall Street players that almost crashed the WORLD economy. In order for Greece to join the EU they had to use the very same accounting tricks that Enron used. The Olympics didn't help either because they won't break even until sometime in the 2020's. Three years simply isn't enough time to correct 8 years of mistakes.

As for loan discrimination: I was offered a half million dollar loan in a nice neighborhood in San Diego even though my credit was shot. I'm white. One of my co-workers was african american and had a near perfect credit score. We were both looking at a 3 bedroom house near the same school. He wasn't even shown the same places I was. And though he had more than $150k in savings (inheritance), the bank wouldn't loan him the other half.

[ciretose]

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

As for loan discrimination: I was offered a half million dollar loan in a nice neighborhood in San Diego even though my credit was shot. I'm white. One of my co-workers was african american and had a near perfect credit score. We were both looking at a 3 bedroom house near the same school. He wasn't even shown the same places I was. And though he had more than $150k in savings (inheritance), the bank wouldn't loan him the other half.

Relevant.

[Sanakht Inaros]

His stand up his awesome.

[Grey Lensman]

Countrywide (now a subsidiary of Bank of America) was recently fined for offering the worst loans to non-whites, even when they had similar or better credit.

[Aretas]

Scott Betts wrote:

Mandor wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Mandor wrote:

Neither side is interested in compromise

The Republican party does not want compromise. They do not want everyone to be involved in the process. They do not want a discussion of opinions. They have their goals, and they will accept no action which does not further them.

Odd how you perfectly described the healthcare bill - except that you got the party wrong.

But at least you have the democratic party's spin right. "Democrats bend over backwards to compromise. Republicans never compromise." Sure, Massachusets didn't buy that lie and the super majority disappeared, but if you keep repeating it, you might con some people into believing it.

My advice to you is to not even try what you just tried, here. It will not work. You cannot twist this. You cannot dilute this. You cannot cover the parts you don't like up. The people you support are not good people. They do not have the interests of their country at heart. Stop supporting them. Stop encouraging them. Stop excusing them. Until you stop, you are part of the problem and we will treat you accordingly.

A moderate Republican is a Democrat. Enough of the Democrat bullying. Conservatives are standing up for their values, that showed in the 2010 Congressional races.

Betts says: "We will treat you accordingly" "you are part of the problem"
PAH!

[Irontruth]

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:

Ciretose: I am not trying to say that the Republicans are now and always have been pure and right. Neither am I saying that the Democrats are now and always have been unholy and wrong. But it is well past time the nation take the actions and sacrifices needed to bring itself back towards more fiscal stability. Just as an individual cannot continually spend and spend more and more, maximizing many credit cards until bakruptcy is unavoidable, the nation cannot blindly go down the path of reckless and ever increasing spending if it is to avoid turmoil. Obama has not only not demonstrated that he can rein in spenging to any reasonablre level; but his actual spending deficits and his own administrations projected future spending deficits make it clear that he has only made this problem worse, not better. Look at Greece, where the results of continual overspending are now beginning to come due. That is why I will not vote for Obama- because I feel his administration has made matters worse, not better for the country.

You want to cut government spending. Okay, a major part of that will be laying off government workers.

Those government workers now need a pay check, who's going to hire them?

Remember, they don't have a pay check, so now they can't spend as much money at Wal-mart. So now Wal-mart needs to lay people off because sales are down.

The economy is uncertain right now. That means people are more likely to save their money instead of spending it. If the government cuts taxes, some of that money leaves the economy in the form of savings. Right now the government is spending that money into the economy, either through wages for employees or to contractors.

Your solution to improve the economy is to increase unemployment. You won't realize how backwards this is though and make some comment about totalitarianism though.

[Grey Lensman]

Aretas wrote:

A moderate Republican is a Democrat

This attitude bothers me more than anything else. I consider it a large part of the problem in politics today. I can think of another party where members were expected to hold to the party line with no room for even the slightest variation, and the areas they controlled were painted red on the map as well.

[thejeff]

Aretas wrote:

A moderate Republican is a Democrat. Enough of the Democrat bullying. Conservatives are standing up for their values, that showed in the 2010 Congressional races.
Betts says: "We will treat you accordingly" "you are part of the problem"
PAH!

Oddly, I agree with the first part of this. A moderate Republican is a Democrat. Or, more accurately, the moderate Republicans have left the party and joined the Democrats. This has had the unfortunate side-effect of making the Democrats more conservative.

This is what I was talking about before. The inmates have taken over the asylum. In much of the country, no one but a wingnut can win in the Republican primary and even in those places they'll have trouble in the general.
This is the end phase of the shift that started with the Civil Rights movement. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act he said "We have lost the South for a generation." Nixon turned that into the Southern Strategy and the Dixiecrats switched parties. Reagan followed up by courting the fundies, turning a generation into 2. But that cards about played out now and it's so ingrained into the party base that they can't do anything but double down.
The Republicans won massively in 2010 due to the bad economy and what did they do with it. In state after state and nationally: attacks on abortion and gay rights, mixed with the usual union busting and corporate giveaways.