A Lesson in Civics for Liberals

[BluePhantom]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Very nice post.

It is also helpful to remember that the economy does not turn on a dime. It usually takes a bit of time for the effects of a policy to start being felt, and can often show continuing ripples well after, depending on what the policy is.

Out of curiosity, BP, what do you teach?

 

[Ernie S.]

Well done BP!

 

[jillian]

too bad it's all B.S.

reality for the sad little o/p... bush took office with a surplus. he ran it into the ground by running two wars while being the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime.

the repubs then de-regulated the banks.

THOSE two factors were largely responsible for imploding the economy at the end of bush's presidency. there were other exacerbating factors, but those were the largest ones.

so you can keep your "civics" lesson to yourself.

though apparently you do need a history lesson.

 

[Ernie S.]

Presented with logic and facts, liberals always resort to "Bush did it".

 

[kiwiman127]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Well, it's an interesting analysis but the OP discounts the power of the veto when one party holds the presidency and the opposing party holds Congress.
Bill Clinton had 37 veto's (1 pocket veto) and all were after the GOP took control of Congress. Two of Clinton's veto's were overridden.
George W Bush had 12 veto's (1 pocket veto) and all were after the Dem's took control of Congress. Four of his veto's were overridden.
If we look at history, the threat of a veto often lead to compromise that benefited both sides of the aisle.
I can't quite claim that's true of late. When was the last time the Dem's came up with a budget and when was the last time there was compromise between the parties?

 

[jillian]

Presented with logic and facts, liberals always resort to "Bush did it".

not really, ernie. i just don't allow rightwingnuts like the o/p to revise history.

everyone is entitled to their own opinion. they are not entitled to their own set of facts.

 

[candycorn]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Well, it's an interesting analysis but the OP discounts the power of the veto when one party holds the presidency and the opposing party holds Congress.
Bill Clinton had 37 veto's (1 pocket veto) and all were after the GOP took control of Congress. Two of Clinton's veto's were overridden.
George W Bush had 12 veto's (1 pocket veto) and all were after the Dem's took control of Congress. Four of his veto's were overridden.
If we look at history, the threat of a veto often lead to compromise that benefited both sides of the aisle.
I can't quite claim that's true of late. When was the last time the Dem's came up with a budget and when was the last time there was compromise between the parties?

Moreover, the mechanisms of the government as laid out by the constitution are ignorant of political reality in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

 

[Ropey]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Well, it's an interesting analysis but the OP discounts the power of the veto when one party holds the presidency and the opposing party holds Congress.
Bill Clinton had 37 veto's (1 pocket veto) and all were after the GOP took control of Congress. Two of Clinton's veto's were overridden.
George W Bush had 12 veto's (1 pocket veto) and all were after the Dem's took control of Congress. Four of his veto's were overridden.
If we look at history, the threat of a veto often lead to compromise that benefited both sides of the aisle.
I can't quite claim that's true of late. When was the last time the Dem's came up with a budget and when was the last time there was compromise between the parties?

That takes too much work today. The politics of the pointed finger runs rampant. I remember when the US Congress did work.

Thank you for your well prepared post BP and kiwiman. It makes the research that much easier.

 

[DDU]

Like.

 

[Bfgrn]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

When Congress authors legislation, who signs it?

What is the United States budget?

The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.

After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it.

Basic civics there teach, and politics. I hope you are able to get your students to keep down their milk and cookies and find their rugs for nap time.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Good thing you teach civics and not economics.

The recent economic failure has little to do with which party controlled what when and mostly to do with a decade or more of greed that finally blew up.

 

[jgarden]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

With all due respect, it takes more than just a textbook knowledge of the Constitution to understand how government really works. Political power and the relative importance of the 3 branches government at any given time does not remain stagnant, but is constantly evolving.

If the power of the presidency was as limited as "BluePhantom" would have us believe, then why is the focus of most of the 2012 election on that one office? One of the reasons has been the steady concentration of political power with the executive branch. The president is the "face" of the party and many in Congress are beholding to the president especially if they are elected on his/her "coat-tails."

Presidents have increasingly relied on "executive orders" to bypass Congress and it usually take years before the Supreme Court is in a position to pass judgment on their constitutionality. By that time it is usually academic, because there is often a new face in the White House.

 

[Lakhota]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Holy shit, you could get a job rewriting history and textbooks in Texas. You make the wingnut bullshit sound purdy...

 

[Sarah G]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Holy shit, you could get a job rewriting history and textbooks in Texas. You make the wingnut bullshit sound purdy...

 

[The Rabbi]

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Good thing you teach civics and not economics.

The recent economic failure has little to do with which party controlled what when and mostly to do with a decade or more of greed that finally blew up.

OK, so the 2000s were greedier than, say, the 1980s? Give me a break. Greed had zero to do with anything. That is simply OWS slogans.
The recent economic failure has everything to do with failures of gov't policy.

 

[editec]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

True, but how is it that you neglected to mention that Conservatives commit exactly the same eroneous thinking?

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

YES!

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Your proposal that people stop generalizing and start paying attention to DETAILS of events is sage.

I have no doubt that you and I are at loggerheads on many issues, but as it regards your advice above?

That, Citizen, is SPOT ON!

 

[candycorn]

too bad it's all B.S.

reality for the sad little o/p... bush took office with a surplus. he ran it into the ground by running two wars while being the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime.

the repubs then de-regulated the banks.

THOSE two factors were largely responsible for imploding the economy at the end of bush's presidency. there were other exacerbating factors, but those were the largest ones.

so you can keep your "civics" lesson to yourself.

though apparently you do need a history lesson.

It was sort of amateurish. The President cannot sponsor a bill in the Congress. This is true. However, never in my lifetime has there not been any number of members of the President's party that would sponsor a bill on his behalf. To suggest that Obama is simply reading the Washington Post waiting to see what Congress does next is sad.

 

[DaGoose]

As I am a teacher............

So is my wife.

How does it feel to be a leech and undeserving of the pay you receive from public taxes? (At least according to conservatives)

 

[Steelplate]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

So... why is this a lesson in civics for "Liberals"? Seems to me that Republipukes and Other Conservative factions love to throw everything at Obama's feet. So perhaps it's a lesson for both sides.

Anyway... I do take issue with your assertion that Congress did whatever Obama wanted when he was elected. Contrary to popular opinion.. Obama didn't have a bulletproof Congress. Ted Kennedy was dying, and there were a host of "blue dog" Democrats who voted with Republicans on the issues. Much like the Tea Party is holding the GOP hostage, the Blue Dogs pretty much held the Dems hostage.

Health Care??? No Public Option... Dems had to negotiate with themselves and still had to go with reconciliation to get it passed. They should have just done it from the beginning and had a comprehensive plan instead of the weak assed shit we have now that actually is a huge boon to Health Insurance Companies and Big Pharma.... yet you guys on the right still bitch and moan about "Socialized Medicine".

So, if you are going to try to educate... try learning the facts first, disseminate them from your own prejudices and actually make an intelligent conclusion.