|
joether -> RE: Finally -- sensible use of Capitol Hill re: immigration (12/9/2014 12:39:52 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
After all the Bush bailouts, and the Stimulus Bills, etc., the "Too Big To Fail" banks simply took that money and bought smaller, shakier banks, meaning they simply got bigger.
"...Bush bailouts..."? No such thing. Former Presidnet G. W. Bush with the Republican controlled Congress produced a number of tax cuts. Most of these benefited the very wealthy in the nation. The idea (at least from the perspective of the Republicans) was to 'starve the beast' by reducing revenue coming into the federal government. The 'beast' was not the one from the Holy Bible, but a metaphor for the federal budget. They reasoned that with less revenue, they could blackmail Democrats into massive cuts into their 'scared cows' or face a bigger backlash in the next election from voters. The Democrats stood their ground and the budget stayed mostly intact. The problem, the surplus this nation was enjoying back in 1999 turned into a deficit that only grew larger each year. This money was simply put on to the nation's debt each year Mr. G. W. Bush was in office. By the time Mr. Obama took office, the debt was five times what it started in 2000.
The 'Stimulus Bill' or, the 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act' of 2009 was a much different concept. It was not dealing with the federal budget or the federal debt. It was dealing with shoring up all the industries in the country that were in a virtual free fall and spiralling down into a second 'Great Depression'. How did the nation get to that point? While most American's attention was on Iraq and/or Afghanistan, the Republicans removed many regulations and laws barring businesses from doing....less...than honest and honorable business dealing with the American public. Remember all those commercials for housing "Bad Credit? Not Credit? Credit Worst than Nothing? You can buy a house for no money down at Crazy Ed's Housing Emporium". Many people were able to obtain housing and other luxuries with very little or no limits. The problem is that many of these people were bad at financial handling of money to begin with. It was no surprise when the housing bubble burst and that houses were worth less than the loan payments.
This was that moment those 'toxic assets' came into existence. That people lost much was truly sad for this nation. The point of the ARRA was to steady the failing industries that were dropping tens of thousands of workers every month into unemployment. By spending federal money to artificially inflate the industries and create 'demand'. This has been done in the past and usually worked out for the best. By 2010, many industries had either leveled off or rebounded. The ARRA was only to run for 2009-2010; the Democrats hoped to add another $450-500 billion in 2011. If that had happen, the damage from the recession would have been much less. But this was blocked by Republicans, because it would make the Democrats look good going into the 2012 election. The same Republican Party that was determined to make Mr. Obama a one term President (by any means necessary). In there 'religious zealotry' they were 'ok' with throwing the whole nation 'under a bus' if it got them what they wanted.
Thanks to many regulations and laws removed by the Republican Party, those banks that your bitching about, did indeed get bigger. Remember that in the next election....
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
As far as their learning about "reaching across the aisle?" They're idea of compromise was to tell them what they were going to do and the GOP could either join in, or attempt to block it. There are Democrats who are not fond of Obamacare. It's been said it had to be watered down to pass because of Republicans. But, no Republicans voted for it, even after it was "watered down." How is it that the Democrats didn't get the bill they wanted? It wasn't the GOP's fault. It was their own party's divisions.
If that was true, explain why the Affordable Care Act is not a direct match of text and wording for the President's original document he submitted to Congress in the end of 2009?
It was not watered down because of Republicans. The President and Democrats asked the Republicans at a face-to-face breakfast meaning "What has to be in this bill for YOU to VOTE IN AGREEMENT on it"? The Republicans came back with 10-12 items. The Democrats grumbled about it for a week or so and put the items into the bill. When the vote came, the Republican/Tea Party went back on...ITS WORD OF HONOR...and voted against the whole bill. That moment set the stage for tense battles on the financial problems this nation would see (i.e. the partial shutdown of the US Government). The bill was watered down in reaction to the Republican demands on the basis that they would vote in agreement; thereby 'reaching across the aisle'.
The 'Blue Dog Democrats' were a minor issue. All of them lost a huge amount of credibility with Democrats and lost elections after that.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Did anyone else notice what Joether's setting the table for? He's already getting ready for blaming the GOP for nothing getting signed into law. If the GOP doesn't pass stuff the Democrats want, it'll get vetoed. It won't Obama's fault that nothing gets signed into law. It will be the GOP's fault for not passing legislation that the President will sign. Forget that Congress and the Senate are the elected lawmakers, so a GOP majority would seem to imply that GOP legislation will be what's most likely to be desired by the public. No, the GOP lawmakers will have to pass Democrat junk, just so it's signed by the President, or they'll be blamed for legislation not being signed into law.
Oh what's wrong, DS? Dont like the idea of the Democrats playing the game the Republican/Tea Party have been paying for the last six years? Should I call the WAMBULANCE?
Yes, the Republican/Tea Party have very little time to prove to the American people they are worth keeping around. All there games, gimmicks, and bullshit will be on display. They will have no room to maneuver nor ability to side-step things. The whole time with the Democrats and the President torpedoing their efforts. Because, that's what the 'Party of No' did to the Democrats. Dont like it? Maybe you should hold the Republican/Tea Party to the same level of accountability and responsibility with power (if not twice) as you slam Democrats and the President.
All the Republican/Tea Party has to do is.....compromise....on the bills for them to past. That means they have to give 50% in order to get the 50% they want. If they try for 90-100%, they'll get hammered by the Democrats. Its a funny concept, that conservatives just can not understand. Let me put it in small terms:
You want to buy a can of soda. The 'conservative' method is to simply take the soda and not pay anything for it. Why should you have to pay for something? The 'liberal' method is to find the point of the 'supply and demand' curve, an pay that amount. The buyer and seller each getting something they want, but giving something they didn't want to part with. This is ultra-uber-basic stuff one learns in elementary school. Why is this stuff so hard for conservatives to grasp?
Let's give a more adult equation on compromising. Many conservatives want 'enhanced border security' along the southern states of the country. In order to get that, they have to give something the Democrats want. Say, increasing stuff for the Affordable Care Act. If what the Republicans are offering to agree to in good faith, they would have their 'wall and guards' in a few months. In fact, that is what they should have done back in 2010. The Democrats wanted the Affordable Care Act to pass with sweeping success; so the Republicans say "ok, we'll give you this stuff, if you agree to our desires with border security". Everyone comes out with something they wanted.
But conservatives dont operate in this 'win-win' mindset. For them, its a zero sum game. One side has to totally lose for the other side to win. And Republicans and especially the Tea Party are VERY POOR LOSERS (i.e. conservative talk radio 2009-2014). This mindset is very unhealthy for this nation. But try as people might, removing this 'zero sum' concept from conservatives, and teaching 'common ground' and 'sensible give & take' to conservatives is extremely hard.
I really dont see this improving with the Republicans controlling Congress. Which is why in 2016, the American people will be....freaking tired....of the 'Party of No' becoming the 'Party of Accomplish Nothing' and vote most of them out of office. The Democrats will be less inclined to 'do business with the extreme elements' of the Republican/Tea Party and pass things that liberals and moderates want. Which will further decrease the Republican/Tea Party size. This assumes the Republicans and Tea Party folks work together; which they wont. They will attack each other more so than either attacks the Democrats. Could this reduce the Republican Party to a minor power? Who knows....
|
|
|
|
