Republicans Take Over House Ready to Spar With Obama

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Yes, but that also cuts both ways. For the past few years, the Republicans have been able to sit back and let the Democrats take the heat during this mess. Now they're going to have a hand in it, and won't be able to sit back and say 'not my fault' anymore.

I agree but we'll have to see how many HoR bills make it through the Senate before we can assign blame for failure or success.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Castout

Pls select more ethical people with the right moral compass who don't need to resort to black campaigning to become popular and controversial lest China becomes unstoppable because USA no longer stands for democracy and civil rights and degraded into petty domestic fighting among themselves.

And people in South Asia depend on USA to bring counterbalance to the growing Chinese influence in the region. The Chinese couldn't care less about democracy or human rights so if they have big influence in South Asia you can bet democracy and civil and human rights will go the way of the dodo birds. . . fast.

I'm not saying that USA is the true champion of democracy and civil and human rights but at least it is still the better of the two evil.

Stop the bickering and get your act together! or the world will see a complete Chinese South Asia in 5 years. And to think that I happen to be living in South Asia .

The US really has no chance at curbing Chinese expansion (assuming that direct military expansion is out of the picture)

Appeasement is the only logical way to go for the american government, since the economical ties between china and america are just too deep.

I would rather bet on internal problems curbing Chinese expansion, than the US

[Castout]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

The US really has no chance at curbing Chinese expansion (assuming that direct military expansion is out of the picture)

Appeasement is the only logical way to go for the american government, since the economical ties between china and america are just too deep.

I would rather bet on internal problems curbing Chinese expansion, than the US

Thanks for the insight when I check on the media appeasement has yet to become US official policy. Maybe being more accommodating but appeasement is not just yet. It just hasn't reached that low point yet. If it did the US would cease being superpower.

What worried me is seeing the degradation of US politics in general that more and more dirty tactics being employed and that US is divided politically into the two political parties that launched themselves into a political feud and war. It used to be for the country's best interest and everybody knows their place and their responsibility but now people are vying and fighting for their personal or party political gain with patriots being replaced by opportunists. Dishonesty is everywhere.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Castout

Thanks for the insight when I check on the media appeasement has yet to become US official policy. Maybe being more accommodating but appeasement is not just yet. It just hasn't reached that low point yet. If it did the US would cease being superpower.

What worried me is seeing the degradation of US politics in general that more and more dirty tactics being employed and that US is divided politically into the two political parties that launched themselves into a political feud and war. It used to be for the country's best interest and everybody knows their place and their responsibility but now people are vying and fighting for their personal or party political gain with patriots being replaced by opportunists. Dishonesty is everywhere.

that is so true
personal gains are put above the interests of the people

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

Don't be blaming the President when your party can't get enough votes to override his veto in spite of controlling the Congress.

AFAIK Bush only veto'd two bills related to defense spending during his term of office, neither of which were aimed at curtailing war spending nor vetoed on those grounds. Both bills were soon modified by Congress and subsequently signed by Bush into law. So yeah it's real funny Gimpy.


Oh no, that overly simplistic blame game just won't fly anymore. Although Congress has been controlled by your party for almost 4 straight years, the last two with a liberal Democratic president even, they still haven't stopped anything, so that pretty much blows your statement right out of the water.

I remember bush vetoing Bills that were budget bills that cut a lot of money to Iraq, they were designed to de-escalate the war by basically saying: "we'll give you X amount of money but you have a date to withdraw troops". Bush vetoed these. Those bills would have saved us huge sums of money being sent to that pointless war.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9946792

Also, the collapse...it isn't necessarily congresses job to keep the pulse on the market. There government agencies that are supposed to keep track of these things...Like the FTC. Who had chairmen who were appointed during the bush administration. where was that oversight by the republican party? Last time I checked congress wasn't the FTC.

you're statement over the "where were the votes" is also unrealistic. Especially when you're dealing with the republican party...who consistently votes partisan...and just about every one of them does so. I'd say you'd be hard pressed to say that for any other party minor or major. So you blaming the democrats for not having 2/3 or whatever it is to override is a farce. Back In those days, they had enough votes to propose a bill...but not get over a veto.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Also, the collapse...it isn't necessarily congresses job to keep the pulse on the market. There government agencies that are supposed to keep track of these things...Like the FTC. Who had chairmen who were appointed during the bush administration. where was that oversight by the republican party?

It was the idea of radical de-regulation and the insane idea that corporations could self regulate themselves that helped cause the collapse.

• Investment banks lobbied the SEC to get rid of leverage rules. The government agreed. Many levered themselves out of business.
  
• The Fed did not do it's duty in enforcing underwriting rules for banks. They let the industry self regulate itself. The industry self-regulated itself over a cliff.
  
• Glass Steagall was repealed, allowing for Wall Street and Main Street banks to become one. They self regulated themselves into becoming too big to fail.

And now Republican senator Darrell Issa of California has sent letters to more than 150 companies, trade groups and research organizations asking them to identify federal regulations that they wanted to see repealed or rewritten.

They just don't learn.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And now Republican senator Darrell Issa of California has sent letters to more than 150 companies, trade groups and research organizations asking them to identify federal regulations that they wanted to see repealed or rewritten.

They just don't learn.

here we go again. Maybe this time we can deregulate ourselves into the great depression 2, to heck with this wimpy recession!

oh and ps. Thanks for the backup Mookie. Nothing like some good cold facts to add on.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It was the idea of radical de-regulation and the insane idea that corporations could self regulate themselves that helped cause the collapse.

• Investment banks lobbied the SEC to get rid of leverage rules. The government agreed. Many levered themselves out of business.
• The Fed did not do it's duty in enforcing underwriting rules for banks. They let the industry self regulate itself. The industry self-regulated itself over a cliff.
• Glass Steagall was repealed, allowing for Wall Street and Main Street banks to become one. They self regulated themselves into becoming too big to fail.

And now Republican senator Darrell Issa of California has sent letters to more than 150 companies, trade groups and research organizations asking them to identify federal regulations that they wanted to see repealed or rewritten.

They just don't learn.

Except that deregulation happened long before that, during Reagans presidency. The result was the fat years of the Clinton presidency which you Dems love to take credit for. Well you can't have it both ways mookie. If deregulation is all that bad then why does it still exist in spite of many Dem opportunities to change it over the past two decades?

Instead of accusing the GoP of partisanship maybe you guys ought to look at your own partisan spending tendencies that are driving Democrat controlled states like California to financial ruin.

Oh and BTW Glass Segall was repealed by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the HoR.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Except that deregulation happened long before that, during Reagans presidency.

The things I mentioned happened in the late 90s/early 2000s.

The result was the fat years of the Clinton presidency which you Dems love to take credit for. Well you can't have it both ways mookie.

So if there's that much lag time, does that mean the 80's were Carter's doing and the current economic climate is Dubya's? You can't have it both ways.

Oh and BTW Glass Segall was repealed by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the HoR.

Yeah, so? Both parties deserve blame.

If deregulation is all that bad then why does it still exist in spite of many Dem opportunities to change it over the past two decades?

Because politicians of both stripes are craven, corrupt and in the pocket of lobbyists and big oil/pharma/auto/Wall Street.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Yeah, so? Both parties deserve blame

Well it's nice of you to finally admit that now that your attempt to lay the entire blame at the foot of the Republicans has failed. Why didn't you say that when you were agreeing with Gimpy?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Well it's nice of you to finally admit that now that your attempt to lay the entire blame at the foot of the Republicans has failed. Why didn't you say that when you were agreeing with Gimpy?

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I blamed the idea of deregulation. Your attempt to mischaracterize my post has failed.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I blamed the idea of deregulation. Your attempt to mischaracterize my post has failed.

I didn't mischaracterize anything. The only party that either you or the Gimpy post that you quoted mentioned was the Republican party. You can't seriously expect anyone to see that as anything but your usual anti-GoP message.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

I didn't mischaracterize anything. The only party that either you or the Gimpy post that you quoted mentioned was the Republican party. You can't seriously expect anyone to see that as anything but your usual anti-GoP message.

I quoted the part where you all were discussing who was at fault for the collapse. Would it have soothed your sensitive feelings if I had quoted your post instead of his? It wouldn't have changed the content of my post if I had.

Stop being so cranky.

[gimpy117]

Oh btw. I liked this article. Im sure august won't

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=1

and i don't deny that it takes two to tango...but the republican party has long been spearheading de-regulation, much more so than the democrats.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I quoted the part where you all were discussing who was at fault for the collapse. Would it have soothed your sensitive feelings if I had quoted your post instead of his? It wouldn't have changed the content of my post if I had.

Stop being so cranky.

I'm not cranky in the least. Believe me, arguing politics on subsim is not something i'm gonna loose sleep over (which i intend to prove just as soon as I submit this reply) if you know what I mean.

I just don't buy your claim of neutrality here. You're acting like I haven't picked up on your political leanings yet in spite of reading literally thousands of your posts over the years. (damn have we known each other that long already?) You confined your criticism to the Republicans like you always do, and only mentioned that "both parties deserve blame" when I called you on it.

FWIW the above is just an observation and should not be construed as being "cranky", "over sensitive" or any other state besides semi-detached bemusement.