Whose Fault is it!?

[dhkosta]

This is to carry over the USD currency inflation discussion from the "northerner price creep" thread.

I'll start with my two cents:

I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I don't want the government in my paycheck, bank account, my school, my home, my workplace, OR MY MOUTH any more than is absolutely necessary to keep the citizenry from explicit, unnecessary harm.

The Republicans governed horribly in that they spent far too much money and eroded the liberties that our fathers fought and died for.

The Democrats are governing horribly in that they are spending even more money and eroding the liberties that our fathers fought and died for, though they have made some minor concessions to the latter, such as some minute positive changes to drug policy.

The dollar is not at an all-time low, but it is far from soaring.

And Obama's policies bear a striking resemblance to those of the Bush administration.

In my opinion, it's the Republicrats' fault.

[sgreger1]

Standby for excessively long convo with 10 pages of responses from people calling you some evil fascist for saying maybe Obama and Bush are alike.


But my 2 cents: I agree with you, Bush spent way to much and although I agree with the wiretapping etc (since it prevented an attack very close to me) and I dont care if 3 admitted terrorists get waterboarded, but mainly the guy spent too much money, and althoguh he did address the pending housing bubble collapse etc to congress several times during his admin, he still did not do enough to prevent it.

Obama: Obama's problem is he comes in and says well Bush made this huge mess caused by runnaway spending, and also theres too much credit available for people who shouldnt have been getting that credit so now theyr defaulting and everyones screwed.
Thats a good analysis, but he responds by trippling the runaway spending, still no oversight, still using the patriot act, still helping the big corporations instead of the small guy, still using signing statements
*breath*
still passing through record numbers of pork projects, still corupt as any politician who hires tax cheats and ex chairmen of the federal reserve (conflict of interest) as the treasure secretary kinda guy, still playing the race card etc.

He is blaming everyone else and then he himself is doing the same thing, its like when you tell your kids not to smoke meawhile you got a cig lit and in your mouth during your lecture.

So in my opinion Obama is obviousely less fiscally conservative.

He is working hard to nationalize the car (and banking and health) industry (owns 69% of gm),

and now they are closing all the chrysler dealerships that donated to republicans only during the election, even though the dealerships were better than some of those they are elaving open.


Its the same old thing, dem or republican, they are spending our money and only they are benefiting from it. Decisions made in washington NEVER benefit the taxpayer


WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN, STATES MAKE RULES AND FED GOV ONLY RUNS ARMY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS!!!!!


</rant>

[justintempler]

And one last FYI, some Democrats voted against it as well.


http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/4988

That was last years vote. Stop misrepresenting the truth! J/K

The 11 nay votes from this years bill was 9 republican/2 democrat.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-287

I know you think that my opinion is flawed or that I'm somehow manipulating the data or something, but to me this would point out pretty frigging clearly that this was an overwhelmingly democrat-backed bill. This same bill was shot down repeatedly when we had a republican majority in the house, so it was no surprise that once we got the dems in a majority position this would fly with passing colors. I'm sorry if you disagree with my findings.

And if you think that misrepresenting the truth is a republican only trait, then you must be new to politics. :wink:

178 Republican votes = 100%
9 Republcans against = 5% of total Republicans
10 Republicans abstained = 5.6% of total Republicans
159 Republicans voted for = 89% of total Republicans

When 89% of Republicans vote for a bill, you can't blame it on the Democratic majority.

bi·par·ti·san (bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən)
adj. Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties: a bipartisan resolution.
bi·par'ti·san·ism n., bi·par'ti·san·ship' n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Today's new word: bipartisan

Class over 8)

[Lucky Striker]

More Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans. Therefore, I blame the Democrats.

Special words for today: Majority Rule.

majority rule
Function:
noun
Date:
1848

: a political principle providing that a majority usually constituted by fifty percent plus one of an organized group will have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole

Class is now over.

(See? I can be just as big an asshole as you. I don't really get a power trip or anything off of it, so what's the point? I'd like to know.)

[Lucky Striker]

And your poll is somewhat confusing. I voted "Obama" because he is the least fiscally responsible president since Clinton, but I would vote "Bush" if you were to ask me who is least fiscally responsible for the mess we're in now.

[Slydel]

Bipartisanship in the US exists only to the extent of the definition. Both parties consist of the same assholes that are ruining the US, differing in name only. Parties should be abolished because the two-party system has a stranglehold on our government. Every political decision is a moral decision that has an effect on everyone. The problem is that politicians lack morals and continually disregard their civic duty.

[Premium Parrots]

Why can't I vote for Oprah?

[justintempler]

majority rule
Function:
noun
Date:
1848

: a political principle providing that a majority usually constituted by fifty percent plus one of an organized group will have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole

One tiny problem.................
It takes a 2/3rd majority to pass this House Bill. ***

***clarification
House rules stipulate that bills that raise taxes or close tax loopholes require a supermajority. (not just a simple majority)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-287

"Required: 2/3 of 408 votes (=272 votes)"

Democrats don't have a 2/3rd majority. So using your definition the House Democrats do not have majority rule.

And

You might (?) expect Democrats to vote for tax increases? yes?

You might (?) expect Republicans to vote against tax increases? yes?

So which party voted against their own principles?

A party that betrays it's own priniciples has only itself to blame for being in the minority.

[ctimb2002]

Ok guys...I have my usual arsenal standing by including but not limited too...

Gay Group Hug, Even Gayer Group Hug, Mupphet singing, and if you really want me to get evil on your ass i'll dig out LambChops "this is the song that never ends"

Oh and PP you can't vote for Oprah because like the Matrix she is everywhere. She actually IS Bush and Obama. Her presence is everywhere and she is everything. Therefore it would be redundant to list her as an option. Remember "Smith?" yea that's her.

[TBD]

Bipartisanship in the US exists only to the extent of the definition. Both parties consist of the same assholes that are ruining the US, differing in name only. Parties should be abolished because the two-party system has a stranglehold on our government. Every political decision is a moral decision that has an effect on everyone. The problem is that politicians lack morals and continually disregard their civic duty.

This what pisses me off the most. Both "parties" are guilty. They tell us how evil the other group is or doing whatever they did, while doing the same things themselves.

George Bush and the Republicans supposedly got us into this mess by spending too much money. Barack Obama and the Democrats are going to get us out of this mess by spending even more money. Wake up people! The names and parties of those in power may change, but that's the only thing that changes. Ayn Rand said in the early 70's that we had the choice of two socialist parties. One just a little less than the other, but both are socialist. You Dems call Bush a fascist. Facism is a socialist philosophy. I call Barack Obama a communist. Again, socialist philosophy. It's all the same and those of us who hoped for a return to a true Representative Republic are screwed. America as envisioned by our Founders is gone and will never return.

[Lucky Striker]

Justin, you still seem to be missing my point. If there were 238 Republicans and 159 Democrats, do you really think the bill would have passed? What about the 15 Democrats that didn't bother voting so as to not upset their brethren?

The Democrats outnumber the Republicans by 90 members. That gives the Democrats a majority presence. More Democrats = more votes in favor of this bill. That's my gripe, there's too many Democrats in the House. And when you have too many Democrats in the House, any time a bill like this comes through you know how they're going to vote.If we're going to have an effective two party House, it should be divided 50/50. When the power shift occurs, we have too much influence from one group that may or may not represent what the majority of America wants. If we had, say, 140 Dems, 140 Repubs, and 10 Independents in the house, this bill would have come out differently. Look at the previous incarnations of this bill that were shot down over and over again by a Republican house.

Anyway, we can keep going on and on about this as long as anyone wants to, but nobody will convince me that this wasn't primarily the fault of the democrats. The republicans that voted on it favorably also draw my ire, as well as anyone that supports the frigging bill in the first place. I AM NOT REPUBLICAN. I am not a REPUBLICAN SYMPATHIZER. I lay my blame wherever I see fit to place it, so please realize that this is my opinion and as much as some would like to change it, it ain't gonna happen.

[dhkosta]

It pains me to have no party anymore. I had a great affinity for the fiscal responsibility of the Republican party until just a few years ago. Even when W. Bush initially ran, I generally liked his platform ("humble foreign policy," MY ASS!!!). My hatred of the Dems has always been there.

That said, I sadly agree that the bill in question was certainly a "bipartisan" effort. That is, if you find any meaningful distinction between the Republicans and Democrats. As of late, I have not.

If only the Republicans had voted, the supermajority would have still been achieved. Even without a congressional majority, the support of the majority of the party makes an effort "bipartisan." Of course, this is to be expected in the USA, because our "two" parties are nearly identical. It's big government conservatism v. big government liberalism, and regardless of the outcome, the government wins and the people lose.

The Republicans and Democrats are both responsible because broad support for the bill was garnered from both parties. I need not remind you that the voters are ultimately to blame. Remember that we put these f-tards in power to begin with.


"The only thing dumber than a Democrat or a Republican is when those pricks work together. You see, in our two-party system, the Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. It usually goes something like this. A Republican will stand up in Congress and say, 'I've got a really bad idea.' And a Democrat will immediately jump to his feet and declare, 'And I can make it shittier.'"
-Lewis Black

[HK11]

You need a wallstreet/federal reserve option. Or maybe just a Greenspan option would work.

[sgreger1]

Bipartisanship in the US exists only to the extent of the definition. Both parties consist of the same assholes that are ruining the US, differing in name only. Parties should be abolished because the two-party system has a stranglehold on our government. Every political decision is a moral decision that has an effect on everyone. The problem is that politicians lack morals and continually disregard their civic duty.

Hit the nail on the head

Why can't I vote for Oprah?

Just keep trying, I penciled in Elmo last election and Pelosi got elected.

[sgreger1]

Re: EVERYONE


I was a proud republican for a long time but now the rep name is somewhat sullied (although dems blow it way out of proportion), I have always been an avid fighter of liberalism and other pinko types, hippies etc, but now I have seen the light that both parties are the same.

-----

Bush 8 years: We gotta spend a lot of money for the war, safety etc

Dems 2009: Bush spent too much money, only way to fix it is to tripple our spending

Repub: Thats ****ing retarded

Dems: Well Bush was retarded to

Repub: We agree, that doesnt mean you fix it with more retardedness

Dems: Bush caused this mess and if we dont tripple spending, increase taxes during a time of recession, give hundreds of millions to hamas in palastein, make an ass of ourselves to the international community, talk with all the bad guys instead of acting
*breath*
and also take over the banking and financial sector as well as own 72% of GM and close down all the chrysler dealerships that donated to the republicans, warranty via fed gov all GM cars, bail out failing companies that continue to fail, we would be worse off. And we are only doing all these bad things because Bush and the evil cabal of warmongeres (who kept us safe for 7 years) MADE us do it, its your fault, we win you lose its all your fault, nah nah nah nah nah.

</hippie drum circle rant>