Obama spanks Wall Street.

OK ..ignore the facts and the numbers of how Congress works

Its not worth discussing with you.

[TheMercenary]

Ok, but what ever. The Dems have been in charge of Congress for over two years now and have MUCH lower approval ratings when compared to Bush. So explain to me how they cannot accept responsibility for the last two years. They are the MaJORITY, and yet can't get a damm thing done. Don't blame the Republickins. The Dems own it. And you need to own up to it.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Ok, but what ever. The Dems have been in charge of Congress for over two years now and have MUCH lower approval ratings when compared to Bush. So explain to me how they cannot accept responsibility for the last two years. They are the MaJORITY, and yet can't get a damm thing done. Don't blame the Republickins. The Dems own it. And you need to own up to it.

Damm....you cant get things done if you cant override a veto..how hard is that to understand?????

No...in fact, the Democrats in Congress did not have a much lower approval rating than Bush.

Cngress as a whole had lower ratings and if you were to look below the surface, most of it was attributed to the record number of Republican Senate filibusters and the acrimony between the two parties.

Job Rating - Democrats

Job Rating - Republicans

Most every poll has the public wanting and trusting the Democrats far more to run Congress.
Trust/Confidence of Political parties

[TheMercenary]

Fail.

CONGRESS
2008 = 18%

BUSH
2008 = 29%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Co...p-Records.aspx

And it stayed that way for more than a year.

[TheMercenary]

Follow the thread. Congress<Bush.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Follow the thread. Congress<Bush.

You dont get it...comparing a body of 535 with one person, you need to look below the surface for the reasons for dissatisfaction with the 535.

It is attributed more to republican obstructionism and bi-partisan bickering. Thats a fact....thus the much lower poll numbers for the Republicans in Congress than the Democrats when asked the question of satisfaction, by party.

Hotline poll: D - 49, R-26
USA today/Gallup: D - 37, R-25
CNN: D-47, R-24
Harris: D-21, R-22
ABC: D-35, R-25

With the exception of Harris, the Democrats not only have higher numbers than the Republicans in Congrss...but higher number than Bush.

In your words..."you need to own up to it"


And now I am bored with you.

[TheMercenary]

No that is bull crap. It was Bush against the Demoncratically controlled Congress. That was the crux of the constant struggle to get things done. Pelosi and Reid own it. They have owned the failures of Congress for the last two years. If things have not been done on the Congressional side of the house it is in their lap no matter how much they traditionally want to pass the buck. The Demoncrats will own the responsibility of the failures of Congress for the last two years and that includes their failures to compromise with the minority. Sorry, that is the way it is.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No that is bull crap. It was Bush against the Demoncratically controlled Congress. That was the crux of the constant struggle to get things done. Pelosi and Reid own it. They have owned the failures of Congress for the last two years. If things have not been done on the Congressional side of the house it is in their lap no matter how much they traditionally want to pass the buck. The Demoncrats will own the responsibility of the failures of Congress for the last two years and that includes their failures to compromise with the minority. Sorry, that is the way it is.

And we all know that when the GOP controlled all 3 branches of government, all bad things and irresponsible spending had ceased.

Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.

Originally Posted by TGRR

]...
Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.

I wouldnt go that far.

There may be little difference in the manner in which they act, but there are significant differences in their respective policy approaches to government.

The stimulus bill is a perfect example. The Democrats want to spend to create jobs, potentially over 3 million in 18 months according to the CBO...and the Republicans want to lower taxes to create jobs, the failed economic policy of Bush and the previous Republican Congresses, with the near $trillion in tax cuts in 01 and 03.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I wouldnt go that far.

There may be little difference in the manner in which they act, but there are significant differences in their respective policy approaches to government.

The stimulus bill is a perfect example. The Democrats want to spend to create jobs, potentially over 3 million in 18 months according to the CBO...and the Republicans want to lower taxes to create jobs, the failed economic policy of Bush and the previous Republican Congresses, with the near $trillion in tax cuts in 01 and 03.

I would disagree. This is a social programs bill cloaked in a simulus package. You are only talking about smalll portions of the bill. Many jobs are not expected to be created for over 4 years from now. How the hell does that help the millions of poor sods out of work NOW? The failure of the Demoncratically controlled Congress for the last two years, you know, that body of government that controls the purse string of our economy, has screwed this up royally. Erase the BS pork and I will support the bill completely. Currently a group of Congressmen from both parties have finally called a truce are are trying to do the right thing, those people are the real workers for the people. Good on them.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would disagree. This is a social programs bill cloaked in a simulus package. You are only talking about smalll portions of the bill. Many jobs are not expected to be created for over 4 years from now. How the hell does that help the millions of poor sods out of work NOW? The failure of the Demoncratically controlled Congress for the last two years, you know, that body of government that controls the purse string of our economy, has screwed this up royally. Erase the BS pork and I will support the bill completely. Currently a group of Congressmen from both parties have finally called a truce are are trying to do the right thing, those people are the real workers for the people. Good on them.

You are ignoring the CBO report and the facts on the job creation impact of the current draft of bill that is based more on spending (about 60%) than tax cuts (about 40%).

In fact, more jobs could probably be created in the short term if there was more spending (on infrastructure projects, etc) and less tax cuts, but the Democrats compromised by accepting tax cuts to make it more bi-partisan. Tax cuts have never produced jobs in the short term., unless you have data that would suggest otherwise...cite please.

I would urge you to take the time to look at the CBO analysis of the bill in its present form ...nearly 2/3 of the funds will be expended in 18 months and potentially creating more than 3 million jobs..there are no guarantees, economics is not an exact science. Much of the rest is to ensure longer term job stability.

Perhaps you have other objective data....cite please!

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would disagree. This is a social programs bill cloaked in a simulus package. You are only talking about smalll portions of the bill. Many jobs are not expected to be created for over 4 years from now. How the hell does that help the millions of poor sods out of work NOW? The failure of the Demoncratically controlled Congress for the last two years, you know, that body of government that controls the purse string of our economy, has screwed this up royally. Erase the BS pork and I will support the bill completely. Currently a group of Congressmen from both parties have finally called a truce are are trying to do the right thing, those people are the real workers for the people. Good on them.

Gee Merc, I know you are smarter than this, and trying to blame this on democrats, who have been completely powerless, even though they had a small majority for the past two years, is fucking insane, and you KNOW it is insane.

It works like this: if people aren't spending money, because they've lost their jobs, or they're afraid of losing their jobs, then companies and businesses lose money. They can't keep producing things (or buying things to supply to people) because people aren't buying. So, businesses continue to lay people off, or worse, they close their doors. If NO ONE is buying anything, then the government can help by pumping money into the economy. If it's in the form of food stamps or unemployment, there is a return of something like $1.75 for every dollar spent (according to Moody's). If it's in the form of tax cuts, it's more like .50 on the dollar (or less), give or take, depending on what kind of tax cut it is (I believe there was one tax that would actually help, but I can't remember what it was called). Giving money to poor people or lower income people puts money into the economy more than giving it to anyone else, because they will spend it. They have to. Middle class people (or wealthier people) are more likely to save it, which isn't usually a bad thing, but at the moment, we need people to buy things. Otherwise, more jobs are lost. Giving the money to states (which many are broke or nearly broke) will ultimately help save jobs, because they are having to cut their budgets, which means laying off people like cops and teachers (hello! education spending! which repubs want to cut out of the bill). But republicans don't want to give money to the states either. They don't want to give money to fund education. They don't want ANY spending. All they want is friggin' tax cuts for the wealthy. The truth is, spending DOES stimulate the economy, no matter what form it takes.

I have a question for all those republicans who think government should play no part in anything, and that government should be kept really, really small, what the hell are you doing in a job that has no place in society? I mean really, they want to get rid of almost all government, hey, them first.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Redux

I wouldnt go that far.

There may be little difference in the manner in which they act, but there are significant differences in their respective policy approaches to government.

They both hate rights. The Dems attack amendments II and X first, and the GOP attacks I, IV, and IX before the others, but they both hate the fact that they can't (at least yet) jam steering wheels up the arse of the electorate and drive it around.

They're both incompetent (thank God).

They both concentrate on handing the treasury over to their lobbyists.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TGRR

And we all know that when the GOP controlled all 3 branches of government, all bad things and irresponsible spending had ceased.

Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.

I would agree.

[slang]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.

Very little it seems.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The executive salary caps (basically no more than $500,000 for any company accepting government money.....

Ok. What does this mean?

"The restrictions will most affect large companies that receive "exceptional assistance," such as Citigroup.

The struggling banking giant has taken about $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program."

Does it mean that there are no restrictions to say, a renown failing newspaper that might accept just 1 billion in US taxpayer money? Is one billion "exceptional assistance" and will the cap effect the executives of the company that accepts the cash?