Yeah. You see, it's not the Republicans. Basically, Republicans=Good, Democrats=Evil. Un-Christian, Satanic Eeeeeeevvvvvviiiiiilllll.
It's those damn Democrats. If we could had a Republican majority everything would be all right because everyone knows Republicans govern fairly and justly . . .
Wait, we had a Republican majority from 1994 until 2006? Hmmmm . . .
The Republicans in office now are a bunch of spineless wimps. Back when Newt was in charge we had REAL Republicans.
If the Democrats put up even half the fight they have given to the attorney firings when the Patriot Act was pushed through it would not have passed. Then again, the Republicans were at least smart enough to name the bill something that would look bad on your record if you voted against it. Sort of like the way some folks will put up the "Defense of Children Act of XXXX" that has nothing to really do with defending kids.
Yeah. You see, it's not the Republicans. Basically, Republicans=Good, Democrats=Evil. Un-Christian, Satanic Eeeeeeevvvvvviiiiiilllll.
It's those damn Democrats. If we could had a Republican majority everything would be all right because everyone knows Republicans govern fairly and justly . . .
Wait, we had a Republican majority from 1994 until 2006? Hmmmm . . .
You know this to be a silly argument. The same pedantic finger-pointing could be done in New Orleans, where Democrats had held a grip on all of Louisiana for 40 years. Why is there such poverty in NO when the New Dealers are around? Why weren't the levies up to snuff after four decades of benevolent NO rule? Why didn't the love-spreading NO government do more to help all of those poor people evacuate the ghettos and slums?
Likewise, the Democrats in the national congress have done exactly butkiss since gaining power almost a year ago. Where are those killer political apps, Pelosi?
I think the problem is that we expect politicians to solve all of our woes. They're not going to be the ones to enact social change. To be fair, neither are corporations -- though I see low-cost wholesalers like Wal-Mart making a much more profound difference in the lives of low-income Americans.
Yeah. You see, it's not the Republicans. Basically, Republicans=Good, Democrats=Evil. Un-Christian, Satanic Eeeeeeevvvvvviiiiiilllll.
It's those damn Democrats. If we could had a Republican majority everything would be all right because everyone knows Republicans govern fairly and justly . . .
Wait, we had a Republican majority from 1994 until 2006? Hmmmm . . .
You know this to be a silly argument. The same pedantic finger-pointing could be done in New Orleans, where Democrats had held a grip on all of Louisiana for 40 years. Why is there such poverty in NO when the New Dealers are around? Why weren't the levies up to snuff after four decades of benevolent NO rule? Why didn't the love-spreading NO government do more to help all of those poor people evacuate the ghettos and slums?
Likewise, the Democrats in the national congress have done exactly butkiss since gaining power almost a year ago. Where are those killer political apps, Pelosi?
It wasn't meant to be an argument. It was meant to be a snippy, snide little sarcastic comment. I didn't point fingers at anyone, unless you think I was pointing fingers at those who think Democrats are responsible for all the ills in the world or at least can't bring themselves to accept that the Republicans might have some slight problems with their record.
But if you're going to grade arguments, I call straw man and Tu Quoque Fallacy on your NO argument.
And yeah, those stupid Democrats haven't done anything. They've only enacted a long-overdue increase in the federal minimum wage, recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 commission, and the broadest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate - measures that received strong bipartisan support but languished in the Republican-led Congress. They passed legislation that will expand stem cell research, energy independence initiatives, the largest expansion of college aid since the GI Bill and legislation extending health insurance to millions of children who today have none. They reinstated the budget rules that produced record surpluses in the 1990s and passed the largest increase for veterans' health care in history, major new investments for equipment and training for our troops, and a farm bill that shifts priorities to family farmers, nutrition and biofuels.
No - they haven't done anything. Besides the stupid, useless stuff mentioned above, they have just been working towards reestablishing congressional oversight and demanding that the administration and the Iraqi government be accountable for the first time in more than four years. Y'know - protecting the Constitution and stuff?
So, yeah - I totally agree that the Democrats in Congress haven't been doing anything in their less than a year of majority power . . .
Democrats enact legislation to turn the government into your mother.
Republicans enact legislation to turn the government into your successful younger brother who hates everyone in the family for treating him like shit when he was a child and wants to make all of you earn your own way 'cause he sure ain't about to give you any of his money!
Libertarians don't get elected but if they did they would abolish all laws that do not deal with national defense, treaties and the general criminal code.
The sad thing about political parties is that they support themselves before they support the people. Kind of reminds me of the state of the Catholic Church back around Pope Pius III. That was when the church had political power and sold forgiveness when it needed a few extra gold coins in the coffers. It also arranged marriages among the children of Popes to forge alliances and the like. It was also a time when the high ranking members of the church owned vast estates and such...
Maybe we should go back to the system of kings where after you serve your four year term you are put to death?
As for ethics reforms Pelosi can start by getting rid of William Jefferson. Remember him, the guy with $90,000 in his freezer? LA still has a democrat for governor so he would be replaced by a democrat.
She can also kick Murtha out for his involvement in the ABSCAM scandal among other things he has done. Like Jefferson he is under a democrat governor so no worries there.
Okay. I've gotta say this. ABSCAM was more than twenty years ago. They actually had an investigation back then and they decided that they didn't have enough evidence on Murtha to do anything. That ship has sailed and your argument has failed.
If, out of the entire House, you've only got a problem with two Democrats, the Democratic Party must be doing pretty good.
Democrats enact legislation to turn the government into your mother.
Republicans enact legislation to turn the government into your successful younger brother who hates everyone in the family for treating him like shit when he was a child and wants to make all of you earn your own way 'cause he sure ain't about to give you any of his money!
Have a black-and-white worldview much? Harry Reid voted for Bankruptcy Reform, a very conservative fiscal vote. Ted Stevens voted for SCHIP reauthorization, a very liberal fiscal vote.
Maybe we should go back to the system of kings where after you serve your four year term you are put to death?
It was a very old system Joe. In fact, on the day of death a king could get someone to stand in for him and take the axe. He got to be king for a whole day though!
Black and white view? Isn't that the whole point of political parties? To say, "vote for us if you believe in XYZ"???
It was a very old system Joe. In fact, on the day of death a king could get someone to stand in for him and take the axe. He got to be king for a whole day though!
Are you suggesting this is a historical reality relevant to the Western Tradition or is this some sort of fever-dream of yours?
Steve, how do you always make it impossible to argue with you. Your points are so off the wall, so bizarre, incorrect, or unrelated, and you just about ignore the points other people make. It's like talking to a neocon.
Steve, how do you always make it impossible to argue with you. Your points are so off the wall, so bizarre, incorrect, or unrelated, and you just about ignore the points other people make. It's like talking to a neocon.
Not all of them. This tangent was based on only one point in an earlier comment I wrote.
Uhhh, no. Cite me one instance of someone thinking that Clinton would end up as a dictator. Did you hear about that the same place you read about the kings being killed after a four year term?
Maybe a cook conspiracy is too many cooks for the broth.
But actually, any plan agreed to between more than one cooks would be a conspiracy . . . so many, many thanksgiving dinners would be the result of cook conspiracies.
Prior to the 2000 election there was "talk" among the right-wing cooks that Clinton might somehow try to repeal the ammendment that keeps presidents from serving more than two terms. It came up again in 2004.
There will not be a Bush dictatorship in this country. Too many other politicians in his party want the job so he would go the way of JFK if he tried to pull it off.
What I do find very amusing in this election cycle is the effect the "people" are having. Those pesky stupid voters keep asking candidates questions that the media folks usually filter out. I think recently someone asked Edwards about the power of prayer and if prayer was so powerful why didn't god answer his prayers and keep his wife from getting cancer!
Prior to the 2000 election there was "talk" among the right-wing cooks that Clinton might somehow try to repeal the ammendment that keeps presidents from serving more than two terms. It came up again in 2004.
I'm sorry, but I don't remember anything like that happening.
It was the same kooks who last year started bringing up the idea of abolishing the "born in the USA" to be president line from the Constitution so Arnie could be president.
Okay, so today he said that it was a mistake for the U.S. to leave Vietnam. I guess if he was in charge, we'd still be there. So apparently that's what he intends for Iraq - an indefinite occupation.
Add to that the relaxed regulations (and money spent on Iraq) that allows for further decay of the infrastructure, and you have collapsed bridges, Katrina, and mine disasters.
Thirdly, you have relaxed regulations that allow predatory lending, a more restrictive bankruptcy code, and an allowance of astronomical interest rates by credit card companies. All this while we have something like a 6 to 1 trade imbalance with China.
Finally, you have damage to the Constitution on multiple fronts.
I'd say the legacy is profound cataclysm that will take a generation to repair.
Most of the laws I've read about in regards to this don't "allow" predatory lending so much as require it. Lending institutions were required have a certain number of high-risk loans to limit "discrimination". Almost sounds liberal when you put it that way, no?
This doesn't mean that there weren't companies that took advantage of the new laws to push 40 yr interest only variable rate loans on a large number of people who couldn't afford it, there certainly were those. Unfortunately it also ensured every company practiced this to some extent. The ones that were wary of the high-risk and emerging-market loans are going to be the ones that survive (assuming the market survives at all).
I'm not a fan of Bush at all. I think I've made that clear.
However, some of your arguments are very flawed.
Add to that the relaxed regulations (and money spent on Iraq) that allows for further decay of the infrastructure, and you have collapsed bridges, Katrina, and mine disasters.
The levees in NO were fatally flawed long before Bush took office. He was the latest in a line of presidents who ignored them. The mines are private corporations. No money sidetracked to Iraq would ever have been used to increase safety at those mines.
Thirdly, you have relaxed regulations that allow predatory lending, a more restrictive bankruptcy code, and an allowance of astronomical interest rates by credit card companies. All this while we have something like a 6 to 1 trade imbalance with China.
These are Congressional issues, not executive issues. You can argue that Bush is directing the Republicans in Congress, I suppose, but the lending lobby has been around since the 70s, gaining more and more protection from its legislative patrons.
Furthermore, I have always struggled to understand why the US-China trade deficit is so frowned upon. If we are buying more from a foreign country than we are selling to them, that means they are dependent on our market more than we are dependent on their market.
I'm siding with the neoliberals on this one:
Neoliberal economists claim that trade deficits are beneficial, noting the correlation between increasing trade deficits and increasing GDP and employment ([1]). An expanding economy means increased demand for domestic and foreign products. This rising demand promotes domestic investment as both foreign and domestic businesses seek to capitalize on the growth in demand. As the rate of growth accelerates foreign credit sources have greater incentives to invest in a growing nation's capital. The greater net inflows from abroad, the greater the trade deficit. Thus, GDP growth can be correlated with a trade deficit. However, these economists seem to ignore the fact the excessive borrowing may artificially inflate GDP.
Strong GDP growth economies such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Hong Kong and the United States run consistent trade deficits.
The imbalance of trade is also measurably helping raise the standard of living in China, which until the past decade has been mired in peasantry. In short, we're helping miserable farmers live more than subsistence crop lifestyles.
I realize that I am in the minority here. I also readily admit that GDP might have more to do with rampant proliferation of fiat currency and over-borrowing. What I do know is that purchasing power in the US has grown tremendously since the 1970s, when the US first posted a trade deficit.
Most of the laws I've read about in regards to this don't "allow" predatory lending so much as require it. Lending institutions were required have a certain number of high-risk loans to limit "discrimination". Almost sounds liberal when you put it that way, no?
Umm, no. Read this. The Truth in Lending Act should have mitigated some of these shenanigans, but regulators ignored their duties.
The mines are private corporations. No money sidetracked to Iraq would ever have been used to increase safety at those mines.
. . . and are regulated by the federal government. The Utah mine probably wouldn't have been allowed to operate in the first place if the regulators had been doing their job.
These are Congressional issues, not executive issues. You can argue that Bush is directing the Republicans in Congress, I suppose, but the lending lobby has been around since the 70s, gaining more and more protection from its legislative patrons.
Some people here never tire of reminding us that GWB is THE PRESIDENT. Can you name a single Congressman or Senator from the Grant administration? How about the Hoover administration? No? And yet Grant and Hoover have terrible legacies. Maybe their legislatures deserved the bad rep more, but they were the executives at the time. It's the "buck stops here" effect.
Furthermore, I have always struggled to understand why the US-China trade deficit is so frowned upon. If we are buying more from a foreign country than we are selling to them, that means they are dependent on our market more than we are dependent on their market.
What happens when they cash in their chips?
The line about Vietnam was to point out that when we left (in defeat) there was a bloodbath. Do we want to repeat THAT mistake again?
Good Lord. Vietnam was a bloodbath while we were there. After we withdrew, there was certainly further fighting, including genocide in Cambodia (exacerbated by Nixon's policies--not caused by Congress) but it wasn't long before the region achieved peace and stability for the first time in two decades. That never would have happened if we had stayed. Is that what you think should have happened? Should we have a presence there still?
Comments
It's those damn Democrats. If we could had a Republican majority everything would be all right because everyone knows Republicans govern fairly and justly . . .
Wait, we had a Republican majority from 1994 until 2006? Hmmmm . . .
If the Democrats put up even half the fight they have given to the attorney firings when the Patriot Act was pushed through it would not have passed. Then again, the Republicans were at least smart enough to name the bill something that would look bad on your record if you voted against it. Sort of like the way some folks will put up the "Defense of Children Act of XXXX" that has nothing to really do with defending kids.
Likewise, the Democrats in the national congress have done exactly butkiss since gaining power almost a year ago. Where are those killer political apps, Pelosi?
I think the problem is that we expect politicians to solve all of our woes. They're not going to be the ones to enact social change. To be fair, neither are corporations -- though I see low-cost wholesalers like Wal-Mart making a much more profound difference in the lives of low-income Americans.
(First Level Boss Fight)
But if you're going to grade arguments, I call straw man and Tu Quoque Fallacy on your NO argument.
And yeah, those stupid Democrats haven't done anything. They've only enacted a long-overdue increase in the federal minimum wage, recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 commission, and the broadest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate - measures that received strong bipartisan support but languished in the Republican-led Congress. They passed legislation that will expand stem cell research, energy independence initiatives, the largest expansion of college aid since the GI Bill and legislation extending health insurance to millions of children who today have none. They reinstated the budget rules that produced record surpluses in the 1990s and passed the largest increase for veterans' health care in history, major new investments for equipment and training for our troops, and a farm bill that shifts priorities to family farmers, nutrition and biofuels.
No - they haven't done anything. Besides the stupid, useless stuff mentioned above, they have just been working towards reestablishing congressional oversight and demanding that the administration and the Iraqi government be accountable for the first time in more than four years. Y'know - protecting the Constitution and stuff?
So, yeah - I totally agree that the Democrats in Congress haven't been doing anything in their less than a year of majority power . . .
Republicans enact legislation to turn the government into your successful younger brother who hates everyone in the family for treating him like shit when he was a child and wants to make all of you earn your own way 'cause he sure ain't about to give you any of his money!
Libertarians don't get elected but if they did they would abolish all laws that do not deal with national defense, treaties and the general criminal code.
The sad thing about political parties is that they support themselves before they support the people. Kind of reminds me of the state of the Catholic Church back around Pope Pius III. That was when the church had political power and sold forgiveness when it needed a few extra gold coins in the coffers. It also arranged marriages among the children of Popes to forge alliances and the like. It was also a time when the high ranking members of the church owned vast estates and such...
Maybe we should go back to the system of kings where after you serve your four year term you are put to death?
As for ethics reforms Pelosi can start by getting rid of William Jefferson. Remember him, the guy with $90,000 in his freezer? LA still has a democrat for governor so he would be replaced by a democrat.
She can also kick Murtha out for his involvement in the ABSCAM scandal among other things he has done. Like Jefferson he is under a democrat governor so no worries there.
There are some others but I'll stop there.
If, out of the entire House, you've only got a problem with two Democrats, the Democratic Party must be doing pretty good. Have a black-and-white worldview much? Harry Reid voted for Bankruptcy Reform, a very conservative fiscal vote. Ted Stevens voted for SCHIP reauthorization, a very liberal fiscal vote. What the hell are you talking about?
Black and white view? Isn't that the whole point of political parties? To say, "vote for us if you believe in XYZ"???
I think Sting even wrote a song about it. I think it was called "Fields of Gold" or something.
Noodly appendaged!
And what's a "cook conspiracy"?
But actually, any plan agreed to between more than one cooks would be a conspiracy . . . so many, many thanksgiving dinners would be the result of cook conspiracies.
There will not be a Bush dictatorship in this country. Too many other politicians in his party want the job so he would go the way of JFK if he tried to pull it off.
What I do find very amusing in this election cycle is the effect the "people" are having. Those pesky stupid voters keep asking candidates questions that the media folks usually filter out. I think recently someone asked Edwards about the power of prayer and if prayer was so powerful why didn't god answer his prayers and keep his wife from getting cancer!
Add to that the relaxed regulations (and money spent on Iraq) that allows for further decay of the infrastructure, and you have collapsed bridges, Katrina, and mine disasters.
Thirdly, you have relaxed regulations that allow predatory lending, a more restrictive bankruptcy code, and an allowance of astronomical interest rates by credit card companies. All this while we have something like a 6 to 1 trade imbalance with China.
Finally, you have damage to the Constitution on multiple fronts.
I'd say the legacy is profound cataclysm that will take a generation to repair.
This doesn't mean that there weren't companies that took advantage of the new laws to push 40 yr interest only variable rate loans on a large number of people who couldn't afford it, there certainly were those. Unfortunately it also ensured every company practiced this to some extent. The ones that were wary of the high-risk and emerging-market loans are going to be the ones that survive (assuming the market survives at all).
However, some of your arguments are very flawed. The levees in NO were fatally flawed long before Bush took office. He was the latest in a line of presidents who ignored them. The mines are private corporations. No money sidetracked to Iraq would ever have been used to increase safety at those mines. These are Congressional issues, not executive issues. You can argue that Bush is directing the Republicans in Congress, I suppose, but the lending lobby has been around since the 70s, gaining more and more protection from its legislative patrons.
Furthermore, I have always struggled to understand why the US-China trade deficit is so frowned upon. If we are buying more from a foreign country than we are selling to them, that means they are dependent on our market more than we are dependent on their market.
I'm siding with the neoliberals on this one: The imbalance of trade is also measurably helping raise the standard of living in China, which until the past decade has been mired in peasantry. In short, we're helping miserable farmers live more than subsistence crop lifestyles.
I realize that I am in the minority here. I also readily admit that GDP might have more to do with rampant proliferation of fiat currency and over-borrowing. What I do know is that purchasing power in the US has grown tremendously since the 1970s, when the US first posted a trade deficit.
Is that what you think should have happened? Should we have a presence there still?