A Lesson in Civics for Liberals

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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?

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

 

[editec]

I love all this re-writing of history by Republicans.

Bush started two useless wars, a trillion dollar unfunded Medicare program, and defunded the government with tax breaks for the rich.

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy, while Bush's SEC looked the other way.

There's your civics lesson for you.

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy

How did zero sum bets destroy the world economy?

What does the notional amount of the bets have to do with anything?

Because they were hedging the "bets" with AIG. And AIG couldn't cover the loses.

Sheesh.

AIG is actually a VICTIM of the BONDS RATINGS AGENCIES, folks.

They based their premumiums on ratings that were wrong.

Its the DEREIVATIVES problem that was initiated by the real estate mess that is really giving us problems.

If the whole problem was the REAL ESTATE meltdown we wouldn't have nearly so much to worry about.

But most banks, most insurance companies, most mutual funds are ALSO HOLDING these dubious and overvalued debt instruments.

THAT is why we (the FED and Treasury) bailed out (read socialism for the banks) the banksters.

Because had we not?

I'm informed that the whole ediface of our economy would have collapsed in a heap of crumbling banking dust.

Our dollars were inflated, our home prices were inflated, and as a cosequence, our debt loads were inflated, too.

The only things that wasn't inflated were our incomes.

And as a result of that income v debt overhang, the debts we collectively assumed we collectively CANNOT REPAY.

The solution is for the banksters and bond holders to take a serious haircut.

But that comes with problems of its own, too, doesn't it?

Our entire system depends on banks being solvent and how solvent are they really when the presumed revenue streams they counted on STOP COMING?.

They aren't solvent...not really.

 

[Sallow]

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

Oh it's alot more then that. Clinton did get an economy in recovery. He could have fucked it up badly..but instead he grew it.

Bush got an economy in recovery as well. It suffered a minor recession, but had largely absorbed the loses and was well on it's way back. Had he let that play out..as opposed to creating a housing bubble..the whole mess that happened at the end of his administration might not have happened. But of course there were 2 (count em) 2 wars in the mix.

 

[Sallow]

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy

How did zero sum bets destroy the world economy?

What does the notional amount of the bets have to do with anything?

Because they were hedging the "bets" with AIG. And AIG couldn't cover the loses.

Sheesh.

AIG is actually a VICTIM of the BONDS RATINGS AGENCIES, folks.

They based their premumiums on ratings that were wrong.

Its the DEREIVATIVES problem that was initiated by the real estate mess that is really giving us problems.

If the whole problem was the REAL ESTATE meltdown we wouldn't have nearly so much to worry about.

Bust most banks most insurance sompanies most mutual funds are ALSO HOLDING these dubious and overvalued debts.

THAT is why we bailed out the banksters.

Because had we not?

I'm informed that whole ediface of our economy would have collapsed in a heap of crumbling banking dust.

Our dollars were inflated, our debts were inflated, too.

The only thing that wasn't inflated were our incomes.

And as a result of that faltering income problem the debts we collectively assumed we collectively CANNOT REPAY.

The solution is for the banksters and bond holders to take a serious haircut.
But that comes with problems of its own, too, doesn't it?

Our entire system depends on banks being solvent.

They aren't...not really.

They can't be stressed on enough. Yes. At some point adults will have to restructure debt and people are going to lose money.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

Oh it's alot more then that. Clinton did get an economy in recovery. He could have fucked it up badly..but instead he grew it.

Bush got an economy in recovery as well. It suffered a minor recession, but had largely absorbed the loses and was well on it's way back. Had he let that play out..as opposed to creating a housing bubble..the whole mess that happened at the end of his administration might not have happened. But of course there were 2 (count em) 2 wars in the mix.

That bush borrowed to pay for instead of saying "we don't have the loot and are already in too much debt"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A. Get rid of regulations.
B. Let the good times roll!

Having fun yet?

Which bank regulations do you feel Bush eliminated?
Be as specific as you can.

Defunding of regulatory agencies. That work?

Most of the damage was done in prior administrations regulation wise, specifically the effective repeal of Glass-Steagall. But after the whole Arthur Anderson debacle, there was reason enough to reinstate that. And it just was not done.

No, that doesn't mean regulations were eliminated. Thanks!

Which regulations do you feel weren't enforced?
Glass-Steagall would have prevented Enron from lying about their earnings? Really?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love all this re-writing of history by Republicans.

Bush started two useless wars, a trillion dollar unfunded Medicare program, and defunded the government with tax breaks for the rich.

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy, while Bush's SEC looked the other way.

There's your civics lesson for you.

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy

How did zero sum bets destroy the world economy?

What does the notional amount of the bets have to do with anything?

Because they were hedging the "bets" with AIG. And AIG couldn't cover the loses.

Sheesh.

But AIG did cover the losses. So how did that destroy the world economy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

 

[BluePhantom]

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?

Wow, I have a lot to catch up on. I posted and went to bed last night.

Ok. Let's start going through these. Uh thank you and I teach business classes and history at the college level.

 

[editec]

Because they were hedging the "bets" with AIG. And AIG couldn't cover the loses.

Sheesh.

AIG is actually a VICTIM of the BONDS RATINGS AGENCIES, folks.

They based their premumiums on ratings that were wrong.

Its the DEREIVATIVES problem that was initiated by the real estate mess that is really giving us problems.

If the whole problem was the REAL ESTATE meltdown we wouldn't have nearly so much to worry about.

Bust most banks most insurance sompanies most mutual funds are ALSO HOLDING these dubious and overvalued debts.

THAT is why we bailed out the banksters.

Because had we not?

I'm informed that whole ediface of our economy would have collapsed in a heap of crumbling banking dust.

Our dollars were inflated, our debts were inflated, too.

The only thing that wasn't inflated were our incomes.

And as a result of that faltering income problem the debts we collectively assumed we collectively CANNOT REPAY.

The solution is for the banksters and bond holders to take a serious haircut.
But that comes with problems of its own, too, doesn't it?

Our entire system depends on banks being solvent.

They aren't...not really.

They can't be stressed on enough. Yes. At some point adults will have to restructure debt and people are going to lose money.

Yeah but the question is: can the banks and bond holders take the hits and keep going, too?


I don't think they can.

And if the banks go down, how does our economy work?

Our entire economic system is based on DEBT creating opportunity. Money only comes into existence when somebody agrees to borrow and then pay back at interest.

How much opportunity can we create if next to nobody can borrow money?

Far better minds than mine, people with a far greater understanding of the macroeconomy than mine, haven't come up with the solution.

It's almost like we're going to get to see this disaster played out in Europe first, and then?

Then the DEBT TOXINS comes home to poison America's financial community.

 

[BluePhantom]

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.

Well first of all it was a budget surplus, not a debt surplus. It's not like Clinton had paid off our debts as some people like to claim. Additionally, he didn't create that budget surplus, Congress did. You clearly missed the part about the president not being able to spend a single dime without Congressional approval. The President can ASK. That's it. It's completely up to congress to do it or tell him to piss off.

No Congress passes a budget that is not extensively modified by Congress.

Secondly, the deregulation you are probably referring to is the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act in 1999. Yes, according to the timeline that one is on the Republicans even though it happened during Clinton's term. However; deregulation had been occurring since as far back as the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Depository Institutions Act of 1982. The former under a Democratic Congress during the Carter administration and the latter under a Democratic Congress during the Reagan administration.

My point was not to say the Republicans are blameless, my point was that we should lay the blame where it really lies. Constantly blaming the President is like blaming the quarterback for getting sacked when the offensive line refuses to block.

And BTW.....it was a lot more than the repeal of Glass-Stegall that led to our economic condition.

 

[BluePhantom]

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.

Yes the President submits a budget. Then Congress modifies the hell out of it and votes on it. The President can veto the budget or anything for that matter but that only gives the President the power to STOP (or at least delay) legislation. He still cannot enact a damn thing.

As another poster pointed out, some Presidents veto a lot and some don't veto very much. That's true but that also has a lot to do with the Congressional balance of power. Obama threatening a veto in July of 2009 for example is a pretty shallow threat because, the fact that they agreed with Obama aside, Congress was so dominated by one party that they had the power to override that veto in a heartbeat.

The President can stop or delay things, the President can play the political game of threatening the veto, but that still does not mean the President can do anything without the approval of Congress, at least in regard to enacting spending or legislation.

 

[BluePhantom]

Isn't it Republicands blaming Obama for this economy. you are preaching to the wrong people. Republicans controlled Congress and the White House from 2001 to 2007 and they own a majority of what is wrong with this economy. Clinton and Republican own some responsibility because of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Anyone who blames Democratic controlled Congress in 2007 of the the Stock Market in 2007 is ignorant and unable to point to one thing Congress did to cause the Stock Market crash.

Well first of all it's kind of funny to call someone ignorant in the same sentence as saying the market crashed in 2007. It crashed in 2008.

Secondly, while I concede that the Republicans repealed Glass-Stegall which was a contributing factor to the crash, to suggest that that is the only reason why the crash happened is foolish at best and ignorant at worst. There was a multitude of effects from a multitude of different areas converging into a perfect economic storm. Some of it was the Republicans, a lot of it was the Democrats.

You forget or conveniently overlook that the Republicans, including Bush, Richard Shelby (Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs), and Mike Oxley (Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services) were warning well ahead of time what was coming and proposed measures to stop the crisis as far back as 2003 when Bush was trying to put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within the oversight authority of the Department of the Treasury. He was warning then what was coming. Frank who was a member of the House Committee vehemently opposed the measure stating that Fannie and Freddie were in no danger, it was an exaggeration, it was a power play, and we should "continue to roll the dice" <- Frank's exact words.

Bush, Shelby, Oxley and the Republicans on those Committees were trying to create a plan to deal with what they saw as a major catastrophe on the horizon. The Democrats resisted strongly. By 2006 housing prices had started to inch downwards. They teetered on the edge during 2006, started rolling and picking up speed during 2007, and fell off the cliff in 2008. In early Autumn of 2006 the Republicans, including Oxley and Shelby were pushing hard for action to be taken. Unfortunately, the Democrats won a landslide victory in the 2006 elections and Frank took over the House Committee while Chris Dodd took over the Senate Committee on January 4, 2007. Both of them refused to take action and insisted there was absolutely nothing wrong. Dodd, as we now know, was receiving massive campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie. In fact, he received more from Fannie and Freddie than anyone else in Congress. Dodd was also receiving money and special treatment from Countrywide. Imagine that. Gues what...Frank was doing the same thing. So Frank and Dodd refused to take action despite not only years of Republican warnings, but now signs and indicators that was proving those warnings to be correct, because especially with Dodd, they were making a lot of money by leaving those institutions alone.

Finally, in 2008 Frank was willing to take some action but it was too little too late by that time. Things had started to pick up speed and the momentum was such that it was simply going to drop off the cliff which it did months after the Democrats finally came aboard.

Now again...lots of things happened. Some (Glass-Stegall) we can pin on the Republicans. Some (Community Reinvestment Act) we can lay on the Democrats. But what we CAN say is that when the shit storm was on the horizon,it was the Republicans who were scrambling to take action while the Democrats sat on their collective asses.

And that's the way it went down.....

 

[Bfgrn]

Isn't it Republicands blaming Obama for this economy. you are preaching to the wrong people. Republicans controlled Congress and the White House from 2001 to 2007 and they own a majority of what is wrong with this economy. Clinton and Republican own some responsibility because of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Anyone who blames Democratic controlled Congress in 2007 of the the Stock Market in 2007 is ignorant and unable to point to one thing Congress did to cause the Stock Market crash.

Well first of all it's kind of funny to call someone ignorant in the same sentence as saying the market crashed in 2007. It crashed in 2008.

Secondly, while I concede that the Republicans repealed Glass-Stegall which was a contributing factor to the crash, to suggest that that is the only reason why the crash happened is foolish at best and ignorant at worst. There was a multitude of effects from a multitude of different areas converging into a perfect economic storm. Some of it was the Republicans, a lot of it was the Democrats.

You forget or conveniently overlook that the Republicans, including Bush, Richard Shelby (Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs), and Mike Oxley (Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services) were warning well ahead of time what was coming and proposed measures to stop the crisis as far back as 2003 when Bush was trying to put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within the oversight authority of the Department of the Treasury. He was warning then what was coming. Frank who was a member of the House Committee vehemently opposed the measure stating that Fannie and Freddie were in no danger, it was an exaggeration, it was a power play, and we should "continue to roll the dice" <- Frank's exact words.

Bush, Shelby, Oxley and the Republicans on those Committees were trying to create a plan to deal with what they saw as a major catastrophe on the horizon. The Democrats resisted strongly. By 2006 housing prices had started to inch downwards. They teetered on the edge during 2006, started rolling and picking up speed during 2007, and fell off the cliff in 2008. In early Autumn of 2006 the Republicans, including Oxley and Shelby were pushing hard for action to be taken. Unfortunately, the Democrats won a landslide victory in the 2006 elections and Frank took over the House Committee while Chris Dodd took over the Senate Committee on January 4, 2007. Both of them refused to take action and insisted there was absolutely nothing wrong. Dodd, as we now know, was receiving massive campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie. In fact, he received more from Fannie and Freddie than anyone else in Congress. Dodd was also receiving money and special treatment from Countrywide. Imagine that. Gues what...Frank was doing the same thing. So Frank and Dodd refused to take action despite not only years of Republican warnings, but now signs and indicators that was proving those warnings to be correct, because especially with Dodd, they were making a lot of money by leaving those institutions alone.

Finally, in 2008 Frank was willing to take some action but it was too little too late by that time. Things had started to pick up speed and the momentum was such that it was simply going to drop off the cliff which it did months after the Democrats finally came aboard.

Now again...lots of things happened. Some (Glass-Stegall) we can pin on the Republicans. Some (Community Reinvestment Act) we can lay on the Democrats. But what we CAN say is that when the shit storm was on the horizon,it was the Republicans who were scrambling to take action while the Democrats sat on their collective asses.

And that's the way it went down.....

What a HUGE pile of right wing rubbish.

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

 

[BluePhantom]

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.

To a point I would agree with you and when I see a conservative blaming the Democrats for something our party was really responsible for, I (reluctantly ) point that out. But what we are seeing most frequently in today's political culture is "blame Bush". Well it wasn't Bush that fucked up the economy. Quite the contrary as my previous post shows, he was actually trying very hard to stop the crisis and had very little to do with creating the conditions that led to it. Bush did a lot of stuff that he rightly gets slammed for, but the crash isn't one of them. As far as "blame Obama"...from January, 2009 - early January, 2011 I am not sure how you can blame anyone else. He was the man in charge and the Democrats in Congress were advancing his economic agenda.

I would agree that from January, 2011 to the present, it's hard to blame him for much. The GOP controls the House, and even the Democrats in the Senate aren't too interested in advancing his agenda anymore. After the slaughter of 2010 who can blame them?

But I point it toward the liberals because they tend to be the ones trying to pin this entire economic mess on the Republicans when in reality both parties contributed to the conditions that led to it and again...when it came time to act, the Republicans tried and the Democrats denied.

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.

Ahhh...but that's the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot. The GOP had nothing to do with any of that. This is yet another thing we hear from the liberals: "the GOP are obstructionists." Pffft. Come on. We had no power to obstruct anything until we took the House in January of 2011. Democrats were obstructing themselves. And it's worth noting that Scott Brown was elected to obstruct Obamacare and the democrats simply found a way around it. The 2010 election wave was because people wanted Obama's agenda to be obstructed. Now toss in that since January the Republican House has passed what...15 - 17 bills that deal with the economy and a budget and Harry Reid won't even allow them to come up for debate in the Senate let alone a vote. So who is obstructing who here?

 

[BluePhantom]

Nicely written but ultimately completely incorrect. Leaves out stuff like historically, if a president wants a war..he gets it. And congress, when dominated by conservatives, will do everything in it's power to thwart or negate the power of the opposing party.

Pfft.....Jesus Sallow.....are you under the impression that one party attempting to thwart the goals of the other party is something new and a "conservative thing". That shit has been going on since the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans before the United States Constitution was even ratified. Go look back at the political battles, maneuvering, and backroom deals between Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams. Go have a look at the elections of 1824 and 1828 between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Have a close look at how Jackson used his influence with Congressional Democrats to block everything Adams tried to do, then when he took office did them himself.

Every party tries to screw the other party. It's been happening in this country from day one.

 

[Ropey]

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.

To a point I would agree with you and when I see a conservative blaming the Democrats for something our party was really responsible for, I (reluctantly ) point that out. But what we are seeing most frequently in today's political culture is "blame Bush". Well it wasn't Bush that fucked up the economy. Quite the contrary as my previous post shows, he was actually trying very hard to stop the crisis and had very little to do with creating the conditions that led to it. Bush did a lot of stuff that he rightly gets slammed for, but the crash isn't one of them. As far as "blame Obama"...from January, 2009 - early January, 2011 I am not sure how you can blame anyone else. He was the man in charge and the Democrats in Congress were advancing his economic agenda.

I would agree that from January, 2011 to the present, it's hard to blame him for much. The GOP controls the House, and even the Democrats in the Senate aren't too interested in advancing his agenda anymore. After the slaughter of 2010 who can blame them?

But I point it toward the liberals because they tend to be the ones trying to pin this entire economic mess on the Republicans when in reality both parties contributed to the conditions that led to it and again...when it came time to act, the Republicans tried and the Democrats denied.

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.

Ahhh...but that's the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot. The GOP had nothing to do with any of that. This is yet another thing we hear from the liberals: "the GOP are obstructionists." Pffft. Come on. We had no power to obstruct anything until we took the House in January of 2011. Democrats were obstructing themselves. And it's worth noting that Scott Brown was elected to obstruct Obamacare and the democrats simply found a way around it. The 2010 election wave was because people wanted Obama's agenda to be obstructed. Now toss in that since January the Republican House has passed what...15 - 17 bills that deal with the economy and a budget and Harry Reid won't even allow them to come up for debate in the Senate let alone a vote. So who is obstructing who here?

A bit of both, but you are surely helping to clarify the separation to this Canadian.

 

[BluePhantom]

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?
[/b]

Ignorance of the public for the most part. I never said the President was powerless. Indeed, he has a great deal of power but the majority of his power is in dealing with foreign affairs. When a Presidential candidate says "I will do this for the economy" or "I will create jobs", "I will bring our jobs back from overseas", "I will pass legislation that does this".....bullshit. He doesn't have the power to do any of those things. He can ask Congress if they would be so good to pass his proposals, but that's it. And certainly by the time his proposal gets through Congress it will be modified to ridiculous degrees.

But a president doesn't get elected by saying "I will try", "I will ask Congress to do this". Why do people place so much emphasis on the president? Primarily because the average American voter is as stupid as a post. What they should base their presidential vote on is primarily things dealing with foreign affairs with domestic affairs and economics a secondary consideration. They should base their Congressional vote upon things dealing primarily with domestic and economic affairs because that's where the bulk of Congressional authority is.

Same concept as why people blame the quarterback for everything. There's a reason why Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl. He had no team around him. Why did Jake Plummer get sacked like crazy and was a disaster for the Cardinals, but when he went to Denver his numbers improved dramatically? Simple....Denver had a strong offensive line and the Cardinals had shit. People in Arizona were screaming for Plummer's head. What they should have been screaming for was a ******* left tackle. It's the same concept.

 

[BluePhantom]

A bit of both, but you are surely helping to clarify the separation to this Canadian.

BING, BING, BING.....WE HAVE A WINNER!!! Yes right now both parties are obstructing each other which is why in my OP I stated that currently no one is in control of the economy.