State of the Union Address

[futurebeachbum]

Senate:
2001 - 2002 : democrat (Afghanistan, Tax cuts for the rich! Oh my!)
2003 - 2004 : republican
2005 - 2006 : republican
2007 - 2010 : democrat (Bank bailouts, TARP, AIG, F&F, Oh my!)

dems: 6 years
reps: 4 years

House:
2001 - 2002 : republican
2003 - 2004 : republican
2005 - 2006 : republican
2007 - 2010 : democrat

reps: 6 years
dems: 4 years

There's plenty of blame to go around, but the National Welfare for Big Pharma Plan (AKA U.S. citizens fund all pharma research for the world ) called the Medicare drug program occurred in 2006 on Bush's watch with a Republican Congress.

Couple that with the 2001 dismantling of the Bill of Rights (AKA the Patriot Act) which the Dems were just as culpable for and I've got plenty of reason for me to vote against all of them.

 

[30ashopper]

Balanced, IMHO, would be for the Democrats to try to use their "majority" (which was voted on by the electorate) to present their policies for at least four years,which would hopefully "neutralize" some of the mess which has been perpetuated by the 4, 6 , or 8 years of Republican rule (whichever way you want to count it). I cannot understand why Republicans cannot admit that the collapse of the financial system happened on their watch.

I prefer not to trip over the same rock twice, thank you very much. What makes you think democrats can be trusted with single party rule any more than republicans? There were / are plenty of democrats involved in decisions that brought on the downturn. Yet, you feel we should turn the reins over to them for a full four years? No thanks. I want balanced government ASAP. Also, this isn't about the economy for me, it's about other things, like federal debt, taxation, SCOTUS, and foriegn policy. Both parties stood by while the housing bubble was being blown. Technically, the "collapse of the financial system" happened on the democrats watch in Congress, with a sitting republican in the White House. I don't trust either party in this area, they all want the same thing, artificial eceonomic growth during their tenure, at any cost. Very few in Congress are actually qualified to 'manage' the economy, IMHO.

 

[scooterbug44]

It's EVERYBODY'S FAULT! Stop trying to shift the blame and just figure out how we can fix the problem and keep it from being repeated!

I think we should vote most of them out and bar lobbyists and special interests from the process - but the Supreme Court is making that even more unlikely!

And we should also severely curtail their benefits. Let them see how the rest of the country lives.

 

[Teresa]

I prefer not to trip over the same rock twice, thank you very much. What makes you think democrats can be trusted with single party rule any more than republicans? There were / are plenty of democrats involved in decisions that brought on the downturn. Yet, you feel we should turn the reins over to them for a full four years? No thanks. I want balanced government ASAP. Also, this isn't about the economy for me, it's about other things, like federal debt, taxation, SCOTUS, and foriegn policy. Both parties stood by while the housing bubble was being blown. Technically, the "collapse of the financial system" happened on the democrats watch in Congress, with a sitting republican in the White House. I don't trust either party in this area, they all want the same thing, artificial eceonomic growth during their tenure, at any cost. Very few in Congress are actually qualified to 'manage' the economy, IMHO.

totally!

but what is balanced govt? a Rep pres and Dem congress? or vice versa? where it seems even more impossible to truly accomplish anything worthy without having it watered way down to something ridiculous? I just want good solid work to happen - look we already told congress what policies and direction we wanted - we made it loud and clear last Presidential election. is it too much to ask congress to take the lead and make it happen? I guess it is.

It's EVERYBODY'S FAULT! Stop trying to shift the blame and just figure out how we can fix the problem and keep it from being repeated!

I think we should vote most of them out and bar lobbyists and special interests from the process - but the Supreme Court is making that even more unlikely!

And we should also severely curtail their benefits. Let them see how the rest of the country lives.

starting with health insurance! literally rip it from them!

Scooty and Shopper - I would vote for you both if you both ran for President jointly.

 

[Lake View Too]

I prefer not to trip over the same rock twice, thank you very much. What makes you think democrats can be trusted with single party rule any more than republicans? There were / are plenty of democrats involved in decisions that brought on the downturn. Yet, you feel we should turn the reins over to them for a full four years? No thanks. I want balanced government ASAP. Also, this isn't about the economy for me, it's about other things, like federal debt, taxation, SCOTUS, and foriegn policy. Both parties stood by while the housing bubble was being blown. Technically, the "collapse of the financial system" happened on the democrats watch in Congress, with a sitting republican in the White House. I don't trust either party in this area, they all want the same thing, artificial eceonomic growth during their tenure, at any cost. Very few in Congress are actually qualified to 'manage' the economy, IMHO.

I believe you're trying to re-write history. George Bush was one of the only modern presidents to never use a veto of any major legislation. To make it sound like the Democrats forced this on him is just totally false. I can't say that Democrats wern't involved in some of the policy that led to financial crisis, but the Republican adminstration, who was clearly in charge for much of the last decade did absolutely nothing to stop the Wall Street gluttony. Do you really want to talk about foreign policy when the Republicans made the single biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country??

 

[30ashopper]

I believe you're trying to re-write history. George Bush was one of the only modern presidents to never use a veto of any major legislation. To make it sound like the Democrats forced this on him is just totally false. I can't say that Democrats wern't involved in some of the policy that led to financial crisis, but the Republican adminstration, who was clearly in charge for much of the last decade did absolutely nothing to stop the Wall Street gluttony. Do you really want to talk about foreign policy when the Republicans made the single biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country??

No, LVT, I'm not. What frustrates me are these knee jerk "throw the blame at a political party" reactions that overlook the whole picture.. we're not going to fix anything if that's the approach we take in analyzing what happened. By saying stuff like that your just playing petty politics.

If you're honestly interested in gaining a historical understanding of what led to our current economic situation, might I suggest a book (written by a moderate dem no less) called Bailout Nation by Barry Rithholtz.

Bailout Nation ? Book

 

[scooterbug44]

From Bailout Nation:
"The bailout has cost more so far than the Marshall Plan, the Louisiana Purchase, the race to the Moon, the S&L Crisis, the Korean War, The New Deal, the Gulf War II/Invasion of Iraq, Vietnam War, NASA and War World II COMBINED. (Oh, and that includes adjusting these other expenses for inflation)."

I found this hard to believe - but it appears to hold up - only if you don't count the money we have already gotten back from the banks (which occurred after the book had been printed) and the current tab for Iraq to date of 1 trillion plus.

Regardless, even the drunken sailors are going "whoa!"

 

[Lake View Too]

30-A Shopper: I didn't mean for this thread to degenerate into a Rep vs. Dem thing. Sorry about that. I genuinely feel that the American people need to give this president a chance. As to the Bailout, this was a policy initiated by George Bush, and signed by George Bush. To blame Obama on this one isn't fair. The stimulus plan is Obama's plan, and I haven't yet heard a plan from the minority as to how to jump-start the economy without spending money.

 

[Linda]

30-A Shopper: I didn't mean for this thread to degenerate into a Rep vs. Dem thing. Sorry about that. I genuinely feel that the American people need to give this president a chance. As to the Bailout, this was a policy initiated by George Bush, and signed by George Bush. To blame Obama on this one isn't fair. The stimulus plan is Obama's plan, and I haven't yet heard a plan from the minority as to how to jump-start the economy without spending money.

Here ya go:

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Roadmap2Final2.pdf

 

[Lake View Too]

I couldn't read the whole thing, but I thought the part about subsidizing heath insurance might cost a little money, and the part about eliminating the corporation tax completely might be quite good for the corporations, but might leave the revenue part of the equation a little bit in doubt.