A Lesson in Civics for Liberals

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?

Which is why Clinton had such a good economy and bush had such a bad one!

Clinton had a decent economy because he worked with Republicans, not against them like Obama is right now. The blame Bush window has now past, time to hold the current president and his party accountable dont you think?

Untrue. Republicans had very little to do with Clinton's economy. Did you miss the impeachment thing?
 
Untrue. Republicans had very little to do with Clinton's economy. Did you miss the impeachment thing?

Oh so because they impeached Clinton for perjuring himself in front of a Federal Grand Jury, that means the Republicans who controlled both chambers of Congress had nothing to do with the economy even though Clinton had absolutely no power to pass any policy that the Republican Congress would not allow? Fucking brilliant hypothesis Sallow.
 
The banks were deregulated?
How's that work, exactly?

I suggest you go to a dictionary,

look up the definition of regulation, and then look up the definition of the prefix de-,

and then put the 2 together.

The definition of deregulation does not prove that deregulation happened. :cuckoo:

So the repeal of Glass/Steagall and other deregulation of banks and investment interests never happened?

lol. Don't respond to my posts if you're just going to troll, fuckstick.
 
Your civics lesson does not equate in to an economic lesson.

I don't recall claiming I was going to educate anyone regarding economics. I said if you wish to have a discussion on who is responsible for what regarding the economy you start by identifying who was actually in control of the economy during specific time frames, not simply who the president happened to be. They are two completely different things.
 
Just another quick little point that has been mentioned a few times in this thread. The President is not required to gain Congressional approval in order to take military action. He can do whatever he wants. Congress has the authority if they choose to stand up and say "no we're not going to let you do that" and force a vote, but if Congress chooses not to address it there is nothing stopping the President from attacking whoever he wishes and he is completely within his Constitutional authority to do so.

Now the War Powers resolution requires that the President notify Congress within 48 hours of his intention to commit troops, and after 60 days he must gain Congressional approval for continued action, but 1) that is a law not a Constitutional requirement, and 2) it's limited to troop action. It has nothing to do with bombing the shit out of some nation.
 
Untrue. Republicans had very little to do with Clinton's economy. Did you miss the impeachment thing?

Oh so because they impeached Clinton for perjuring himself in front of a Federal Grand Jury, that means the Republicans who controlled both chambers of Congress had nothing to do with the economy even though Clinton had absolutely no power to pass any policy that the Republican Congress would not allow? Fucking brilliant hypothesis Sallow.

Sallow's brilliance is not deterred by facts. Get used to it. I put the asshole on ignore because there is no way I can hope to educate someone so woefully deficient in just basic information.
 
I suggest you go to a dictionary,

look up the definition of regulation, and then look up the definition of the prefix de-,

and then put the 2 together.

The definition of deregulation does not prove that deregulation happened. :cuckoo:

So the repeal of Glass/Steagall and other deregulation of banks and investment interests never happened?

lol. Don't respond to my posts if you're just going to troll, fuckstick.

Jillian claimed the Republicans deregulated the banks after the Bush tax cuts.
Are you saying she was wrong? :lol:

Maybe you can explain how repealing Glass Steagall caused the economy to tank?
Fuckstick.
 
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.
Too bad idiots like you give clinton credit for congresses achievement. I remember when Bush took office and during his election campaign they were calling the then current recession the 'clinton recession'. If congress was controlled by dimwits then clinton would be as bad as obamaturd.
 
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.
Too bad idiots like you give clinton credit for congresses achievement. I remember when Bush took office and during his election campaign they were calling the then current recession the 'clinton recession'. If congress was controlled by dimwits then clinton would be as bad as obamaturd.

Using the logic that Clinton got credit for Congress's achievements, then Ronald Reagan got credit for his Congress's achievements also.
 
Using the logic that Clinton got credit for Congress's achievements, then Ronald Reagan got credit for his Congress's achievements also.

To some degree that is absolutely true, particularly during Reagan's first term. By his second term however, as I pointed out in my OP, Congress did what Reagan said regardless of political partisanship. Reagan won re-election by an electoral vote count of 525-13. It was the most lopsided victory in history. No one was going to dare oppose him after that.
 
And it's worth noting that Scott Brown was elected to obstruct Obamacare and the democrats simply found a way around it.

Yes, by passing it with 60 votes in the Senate several weeks before that election even took place. Devious!

Ahhh you forget (or conveniently overlook) what happened. There was the Senate bill and the House bill. The Senate bill was passed but it was looking like it was going to fail in the Senate. Both bills would have to be combined and then voted on again. Brown campaigned that when that happened he would cast the 41st vote to block the final piece of legislation. He was elected for that reason by ultra-liberal voters in an ultra-liberal state. As a result, the Senate bill was passed through reconciliation bypassing that final Senate vote. Damn right it was devious....by Reid and Pelosi.
 
And it's worth noting that Scott Brown was elected to obstruct Obamacare and the democrats simply found a way around it.

Yes, by passing it with 60 votes in the Senate several weeks before that election even took place. Devious!

Ahhh you forget (or conveniently overlook) what happened. There was the Senate bill and the House bill. The Senate bill was passed but it was looking like it was going to fail in the Senate. Both bills would have to be combined and then voted on again. Brown campaigned that when that happened he would cast the 41st vote to block the final piece of legislation. He was elected for that reason by ultra-liberal voters in an ultra-liberal state. As a result, the Senate bill was passed through reconciliation bypassing that final Senate vote. Damn right it was devious....by Reid and Pelosi.

Facts:Greenbeard::Sunlight:Cockroaches.
 
As a result, the Senate bill was passed through reconciliation bypassing that final Senate vote.

The Senate bill (which was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was not passed through reconciliation. It was passed in December 2009 with 60 votes. That's what the House passed in March, at which point Obama signed it into law. A short reconciliation bill editing some of the numbers in the ACA was also passed in March.

The actual ACA was already through the Senate before the Massachusetts election took place. You can't pass a piece of legislation like the ACA using reconciliation.
 
As a result, the Senate bill was passed through reconciliation bypassing that final Senate vote.

The Senate bill (which was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was not passed through reconciliation. It was passed in December 2009 with 60 votes. That's what the House passed in March, at which point Obama signed it into law. A short reconciliation bill editing some of the numbers in the ACA was also passed in March.

The actual ACA was already through the Senate before the Massachusetts election took place. You can't pass a piece of legislation like the ACA using reconciliation.

Yes I stand corrected. It was the House bill that was passed through reconciliation bypassing the Senate vote that Brown was elected to block. My mistake in my haste to type.
 
As a result, the Senate bill was passed through reconciliation bypassing that final Senate vote.

The Senate bill (which was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was not passed through reconciliation. It was passed in December 2009 with 60 votes. That's what the House passed in March, at which point Obama signed it into law. A short reconciliation bill editing some of the numbers in the ACA was also passed in March.

The actual ACA was already through the Senate before the Massachusetts election took place. You can't pass a piece of legislation like the ACA using reconciliation.

Actually they did.
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you need to lie so often?
 
Yes I stand corrected. It was the House bill that was passed through reconciliation bypassing the Senate vote that Brown was elected to block. My mistake in my haste to type.

UGH....ok. Now I'm getting all messed up. You are correct about the Senate bill. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 which amended Obamacare to find a compromise with House Democrats who didn't like the Senate bill was what passed through reconciliation. This is no small thing. Without this, Obamacare would have never passed the House. That was the deal between Pelosi and Reid. Pelosi gets the Senate bill through the House and Reid will pass an amendment bill through the Senate via reconciliation (bypassing the Scott Brown factor) in order to reach compromise between Senate Democrats and House Democrats.

The final result is that Brown was elected to stop Obamacare, and Pelosi/Reid used procedural tactics to strike a backroom deal to go around it.
 
Using the logic that Clinton got credit for Congress's achievements, then Ronald Reagan got credit for his Congress's achievements also.

To some degree that is absolutely true, particularly during Reagan's first term. By his second term however, as I pointed out in my OP, Congress did what Reagan said regardless of political partisanship. Reagan won re-election by an electoral vote count of 525-13. It was the most lopsided victory in history. No one was going to dare oppose him after that.

While I agree with much of your above post, Clinton wasn't reduced to a figurehead president either. He had 20 vetos from 1997 until he left office with one veto being overridden. Despite the Congressional investigations, Clinton and Congress still worked together in a bipartisan way. I'm not saying it was a honeymoon but compared to the unbelievable partisan environment in Washington today, it almost appears like a honeymoon. And be sure, with Clinton's veto's and threats of veto's, Clinton still had much power. After the government shutdowns in 95 & 96, Clinton's popularity soared, the GOP avoided a repeat of that scenario by at least trying to work with Clinton.
One of his last accomplishments, was in the face of projected budget surpluses, was to turn back an effort by the GOP Congress to enact tax cuts. Clinton wanted to pay down the debt instead with the projected surpluses.. He feared that the tax cuts would cause deficits and rise the debt. As history shows, he was right.
I'm no fan of Clinton personally. His little sex escapades disgraced the presidency. But in regards to doing his job and working with a hostile congress, Clinton more than held his ground and shaped good groundwork to GWB to start his presidency.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top