The Tea Party Republicans are Revolting

@BillRM,

Quote:

Strange is it not that Clinton had not only a balance budget but we was paying down the debt and the debt only then exploded under Bush watch.

When the evil non US citizen Obama somehow got into office the economic was on the cliff edge of going into another great depression and all repeat all the finance experts was calling for massive infusion of funds into the banks and finance system.

An infusion that was started in the last weeks of the Bush administration as a matter of fact.

Love how you right wingers wishes to rewrite history even very recent history to match your world view.

BillRM someone cannot pay down the debt if it continues to rise every year. Clinton’s surplus was a myth. The national debt did climb under Clinton but it was much less then it grew under Bush. The #'s I have seen show Clinton adding about 2.2 trillion (4.1-5.8 Trillion) to the debt. Bush added another 5 trillion to the debt (5.8-10.5 trillion). In comparison the national debt under Obama has climbed to almost the same levels it did during the Bush years. He has added about 4 trillion (10.5-14.5 trillion) to the national debt.

Obama holds part of the blame for the Bank bailouts, as a presidential contender he chose to vote for the bailouts knowing he could win the Presidential race. I will point out also that unemployment at the time of Obama's stimulus was at 7% and we were told that by doing the stimulus we would keep unemployment below 8%. We are currently sitting at 9% with no great changes in the rate.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

Obama holds part of the blame for the Bank bailouts, as a presidential contender he chose to vote for the bailouts knowing he could win the Presidential race. I will point out also that unemployment at the time of Obama's stimulus was at 7% and we were told that by doing the stimulus we would keep unemployment below 8%. We are currently sitting at 9% with no great changes in the rate.

Name me one important finance expert who did not think at the time that a bank bail out was needed to stop the whole finance system from collapsing as in a replay of 1929.

Second we did not have a 1929 level of collapse and the very very likely reason that we did not are the bail outs.

With the damage done thanks to the little Republican oversight of the banks/housing market, there was no way we could had avoided the situation we are in now but without those funds into the banking system it could and likely would had been far worst.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Name me one important finance expert who did not think at the time that a bank bail out was needed to stop the whole finance system from collapsing as in a replay of 1929.

Second we did not have a 1929 level of collapse and the very very likely reason that we did not are the bail outs.

Are we really better off? Have things improved? No the country is still broke and people are still loosing their houses. I'm willing to bet another stimulas is being planned as we speak.

Quote:

With the damage done thanks to the little Republican oversight of the banks/housing market, there was no way we could had avoided the situation we are in now but without those funds into the banking system it could and likely would had been far worst.

You seem to forget that the Dems won the house and senate in 2006, 2 years before the meltdown. Why push this on the Republicans who were not even in power leading up to the meltdown. If there was a lack of over site, it should rest with the Dems who were in power. Nancy Pelosi was the speaker of the house and Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Leader. Why did they not provide more over site?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

Why push this on the Republicans who were not even in power leading up to the meltdown. If there was a lack of over site, it should rest with the Dems who were in power. Nancy Pelosi was the speaker of the house and Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Leader. Why did they not provide more over site?

There is some blame to go around however below is more then enough reasons to blame the GOP mainly for this mess.

The GOP is the party who kept pushing for less government oversight in all areas of the economic and it was this lack of government oversight and control that allow the insane mortgages and bonds and secondary markets that let to the near melt down of the finance system.

Resulting in the need to pump large sums of fundings into the banking system.

They are still against government oversight to this day even after we all had seen the results of not having strong oversight in place.

It was a GOP President and a GOP Congress who passed the big tax cuts that help the national debt bloom up and it is the current GOP house that is blocking returning the rate to somewhere near what they were before that event in order to help reduce the runaway debt.

Side note it is the GOP house who had been playing games with the full faith and credit of the US and that is not helpful to say the least.

It was under Bush watch that he sold us all the idea of the need to go to war with Iraqi using incorrect intelligent that had cost us trillions of dollars not to mention many lives.

There are other reasons but I think I hit the main ones as why it the GOP fault at least for the most part.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You still fail to address that fact that the Dems had 2 years to correct the lack of over site and did nothing, were they waiting till it was to late to make the US look bad? Those are the charges against the Republicans and they only took the House back 1 year ago. When do the Dems get to pick up some of the blame for their lack of leadership?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

So a Dem congress with Bush as president is at fault for in two years not turning around 6 years of effects to reduce oversight in the finance markets by the GOP?

Not only must they had turn it around but somehow repair the damage already done by this **** poor oversight and all this against the then President wishes and his control of a large parts of the agencies in question.

It would had been an truly amazing achievement of the first order for any congress.

Is that how silly you are being?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Bill they had 2 years before Obama and almost 3 years since. When Obama took office they had all the power, the republicans only recently took over the House and that was last year. Before that the Dems held all the posts and still haven't fixed anything.

Quote:

So a Dem congress with Bush as president is at fault for in two years not turning around 6 years of effects to reduce oversight in the finance markets by the GOP?

Looking at the history of the deregulation/reduce oversight, this was done in 1999 when the Dems had control of the Senate and the Pres. Once again blaming the Reps when they were the minority party doesn't make sense. When do you start to look at the party you support and shove some blame their way or are they faultless in everything that happens?

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

C'mon, Baldi. You know as well as I do that the Republicans did every single thing they could to PREVENT the Dems from fixing anything. They have obstructed to the maximum amount possible; watered-down every single thing proposed by Obama and the Dems, and used every dirty tactic and trick in the book to keep anything from getting better.

Your narrative conveniently leaves out those little facts. It isn't as if the Dems didn't try to clean up a lot of these problems.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

Bill they had 2 years before Obama and almost 3 years since.

And what does Obama being in office starting in 2008 have to do with the melt down of the finance market due to poor oversight that occur before or at 2008?

In fact I had hear more then one GOP politicians complaining about the new level of oversight Obama had put into placed since he told office.

Sorry this is as silly as trying to blame Obama for the civil war as both the melt down and the civil war occur before his watch began.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Bill/Cyc

You have both just proven my point. The changing in the regulation took place during the Clinton years not the Bush years. He signed into law the change but you blame the Reps for it. They were once again the minority party but you blame them for getting rid of the oversite. When do the Dems get the blame.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Bill/Cyc

You have both just proven my point. The changing in the regulation took place during the Clinton years not the Bush years. He signed into law the change but you blame the Reps for it. They were once again the minority party but you blame them for getting rid of the oversite. When do the Dems get the blame.

This is as little sloppy. The changes in regulation that took place under Clinton were, indeed, execrable. I do blame Dems and Clinton for making a very foolish decision to repeal the laws that prevented our trading houses and banks from merging with one another.

But - that's only a small part of the problem. There was ample evidence presented to the SEC under Bush that the Credit-default swap market should have been regulated, but they specifically chose not to do so.

And it's completely farcical for you to claim that the Dems have not tried to increase regulation of the banks and financial industry since Obama took office. They passed a bill to do exactly that, and the Republicans have done everything they possibly can in order to block those regulations from taking place. That's just the fact of the matter; do you acknowledge this is true?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I will admit that they tried to block some of the regulations. Thank you for admitting that the Reps didn't do this all on their own. Lets hope Bill will admit the same thing.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Nothing is perfect in this world however there is no question that the vast amount of the blame is in the hands of the GOP for the mortgage/bond meltdown and to this day they as a party, by their leaders own current statements, are unable to learn that government oversight is needed unless you wish to go from one crisis to the next crisis.

0 Replies

The Conservative T.E.A. Party is infinitely more desirable than the Liberal Democrat Downgrade Party

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Are you a member of the tea party? Because if you are that would explain a lot. Smile

2 Replies

@jcboy,

No.

0 Replies

@jcboy,

Quote:

Are you a member of the tea party?

He applied, but failed the intelligence portion of the test.

1 Reply

@LionTamerX,

LionTamerX wrote:

Quote:
Are you a member of the tea party?

He applied, but failed the intelligence portion of the test.

No... He couldn't take the oath... Everytime they said: I; (State your Name), he said: I; state your name....

0 Replies

It's so nice to see you downgrade democrats come together for group negativity.
Obama is spreading the misery around and you are drunk on his Kool-Aid... LOL!

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

It's so nice to see you downgrade democrats come together for group negativity.
Obama is spreading the misery around and you are drunk on his Kool-Aid... LOL!

Now you are figuring it out dummmasss... The democrats spread it around... The republicans concentrate it in the lowest classes, and among those like Seniors who are least able to defend themselves.... It does not mean a lot of Senior won't shoot themselves in the foot by voting republican... A lot of people think the cure for poisoning is more poison... Some people are too stupid to get it... Ultimately, even the democrat approach of trying to preserve the wealth of the wealthy, or by helping the rich democrats to stay rich or get richer in the process are destroying the nation... But their approach is more fair and better, and should be practiced accross the board... The rich should be taxed or they should get the hell out and leave it behind...If they think they can live indefinitely sucking the life out of this nation like so many lice they are wrong... Hang 'em... And if they object, then wound 'em first...

2 Replies

The Tea Party Republicans are Revolting

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know