The US Republican party are funny

themrhubarbs

http://maundysblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/republican-party-might-be-accidental.html

Seriously. Think about it. They have to be pretty smart to run a country, so there is every chance this was never accidental.

Black Swan

themrhubarbs wrote: »

Seriously. Think about it. They have to be pretty smart to run a country, so there is every chance this was never accidental.

Depends upon how you define "smart," given that Bush-Cheney took office when the country was at peace, was beginning to reverse the federal deficit, and the equity markets had been growing for several years.

When Bush-Cheney left office in January 2009, the federal deficit had almost doubled, the country was in the worst recession since the Great Depression, the equity markets had lost half their value, housing foreclosures were reaching record proportions, the biggest bank failure in US history had occurred (Washington Mutual), and they had started two wars that had been ongoing without resolution for several years. If that defines "smart," I would hate to see what defines incompetent.

themrhubarbs

I know what you are trying to convey, however the country was at peace (for the most part) until the September 11 attacks.

It seems perfectly acceptable to me for a country to go to war based on that.

You cannot blame the government for the market situation, at least in America. The American system is so deregulated it is not funny.

If there was more government interference in America regarding such things as health and finance, there would be substantially less to worry about.

The government in itself is not corrupt, it works on a reactionary basis, and there are money-chasing corrupt individuals who love to exploit that, just as there are in every society.

It is those people who need to be stopped, and increased governmental interference seems a good way to do that.

I really do not think the financial situation can be blamed on the US government, but more on international financiers and brokers. The sub-prime mortgage crisis was definitely not the fault of the US government.

And them going to war over 9/11 was a sound idea.

meglome

themrhubarbs wrote: »

I really do not think the financial situation can be blamed on the US government, but more on international financiers and brokers. The sub-prime mortgage crisis was definitely not the fault of the US government.

They took basically all regulation away from investment banks which led directly to the recession. Seems like their fault to me.

themrhubarbs wrote: »

And them going to war over 9/11 was a sound idea.

Afghanistan maybe... Iraq no.

msteiner

My main question for all of those who question the judgement of the GOP is the following.

Who would you prefer, the Democrats who increase the deficit fifty percent faster than the GOP, or the GOP, a party that increases the deficit at a lower speed. If I had to choose, I'd pick the GOP because they are the lesser of two evils. Let me remind you as well, Democrats controlled the both houses of Congresses for most of Bush's second term, so to blame the entire mess on one party seems a bit precarious to me.

themrhubarbs

meglome wrote: »

They took basically all regulation away from investment banks which led directly to the recession. Seems like their fault to me.

It's not their fault that there are greedy, corrupt people in business.

At least we now know that people like that cannot be trusted and increased government interference in that arena is paramount.

meglome

themrhubarbs wrote: »

It's not their fault that there are greedy, corrupt people in business.

At least we now know that people like that cannot be trusted and increased government interference in that arena is paramount.

Well since many of these greedy corrupt people were good friends to the republican party then maybe they really should have known better.

Black Swan

themrhubarbs wrote: »

I really do not think the financial situation can be blamed on the US government

The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from the 1996 elections until the Democrats won control of the House, but not the Senate in 2006. Republicans also controlled the Executive with GW Bush as president from January 2001 until January 2009. Deregulation is, and has been, a typical Republican platform followed by such actions that contributed greatly to the greatest recession since the Great Depression:

• SEC investment bank deregulation in 2004: GW Bush pushed for deregulation of investment banking, and Cox his appointee to Chairman of the SEC deregulated, allowing for the risky investment practices that resulted in the failure of Goldman Sachs, and other investment houses in 2008.
• SEC reduction in SEC regulator employees in 2004: Chairman Cox, following GW Bush's lead, significantly reduced the number of investment bank regulators to where there were so few, that for all practical purposes, investment banks became self-regulating. That's like asking the foxes to supervise the chickens in the coup; and sure enough, this contributed to several investment banks making risky investments and their failure in 2008.
• Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000: The "Contract with America" Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and passed this Act (driven by GW Bush and Republican Senator Gramm) that deregulated the energy industry. "Special purpose entities" that were high risk emerged from this deregulated environment that had little or no accountability. Creative accounting practices by corporations such as Enron made them appear as if they had huge profits, which did not in reality exist. Enron’s fraud-based failure and collapse wiped out billions in investor wealth and helped contribute to the dotcom recession.

In addition to how Republican deregulation contributed to the great recession, they started 2 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, one of which is the longest war in US history, both of which have been contributing to the doubling of the federal deficit at almost a billion dollars a month.

These wars, plus other wasteful government spending contributed to the doubling of the federal deficit under GW Bush since the end of the Clinton Era, which in turn contributed to the huge financial meltdown recognized in 2008 that the United States now experiences.

themrhubarbs wrote: »

And them going to war over 9/11 was a sound idea.

Did the country of Afghanistan attack the United States on 11 September 2001, or did a small independent group of terrorists led by Osama bin Laden, that were allowed to train themselves in Afghanistan (and Florida), attack the Twin Towers and Pentagon?

If it was justified to attack the country of Afghanistan because they allowed the hijackers to be trained there, using the same logic, should the State of Florida also been attacked, and the Governorship of Jeb Bush be overthrown, where several of the hijackers were allowed flight training? (Please excuse the craic )

None of the 19 plane hijackers were citizens of Afghanistan; rather one was from Egypt, two from UAE, one from Lebanon, and the greatest number (15) were citizens of Saudi Arabia, which is also where Osama bin Laden was born. Afghanistan was only a staging point for the attack on New York and DC, and if that justifies an attack on the nation of Afghanistan, then the same logic would apply to our Republic of Ireland for the enemies of the United States, as Shannon is a staging point for the US Military in their wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Black Swan

msteiner wrote: »

Let me remind you as well, Democrats controlled the both houses of Congresses for most of Bush's second term, so to blame the entire mess on one party seems a bit precarious to me.

This is not correct. Democrats did not control both houses during GW Bush's 2nd term. The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for a decade, from January 1997 until when the Democrats won the House (swearing into office January 2007), but not the Senate, which the Democrats did not control until being sworn into office in January 2009 after the national sweep in the November 2008 elections.

Further, it takes time to make a financial mess of things with legislation and excessive deregulation. By the time the Republicans had lost the House in January 2007 (but not the Senate), most of the high risk investments resulting from a decade of deregulation had already been put in place, along with two wars that were costing the tax payer almost a billion dollars a month, and the GW Bush administration (almost) doubling of the federal deficit since the Clinton Era due to excessive federal spending. When the Democrats had been sworn into office in the House in January 2007, the damage had already been done, and the financial meltdown had already begun (according to Warren Buffet).

Further, I remember reading a 2004 article written in The Economist warning the United States that they were sitting on a "housing bubble" that was going to burst, but the Republican controlled both houses of Congress (2004, 2005, and 2006) the Bush presidency of January 2001 to January 2009 sat on their hands and did nothing to mitigate what now has become the greatest number of housing foreclosures in US history.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fascinating.

Are you saying bush/cheney should get some kind of free pass because democrats have started more wars in the past?

kev9100

msteiner wrote: »

Let me remind you as well, Democrats controlled the both houses of Congresses for most of Bush's second term, so to blame the entire mess on one party seems a bit precarious to me.

That is completely wrong. The GOP controlled both Houses of Congress up to 2006.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kev9100

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True, but I don't think you could describe the GOP as non-interventionists post WW2.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That was never stated in my posts to this thread. I only mentioned that CIC GW Bush started two wars with problematic justifications that were contributing to record federal deficits.

But if you are to include the Kennedy Cuban missile crisis, then you must also include Reagan's arms race with the USSR, and his proxy war supporting the Nicaraguan contras in Central America.

Come to think of it, if we include proxy wars, I think both are war parties, Republicans and Democrats. The US has loved war since its war for independence, and let's not mention the ridiculous Spanish American War, which Prescott Bush was involved in up to his ear lobes, and which had no more justification than the 2nd Iraq War under GW Bush.

"Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Very peaceful song indeed (what a craic!).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You might just have a point, except for the fact that the US participates in wars of aggression whereas Ireland do not.

Selkies

karma_ wrote: »

You might just have a point, except for the fact that the US participates in wars of aggression whereas Ireland do not.

"Wars of aggression"
It is my understanding that you can't have war without aggression.

That, and the fact that you wrote "Ireland do not." as opposed to "Ireland does not." makes me wonder whether my reply is going to be worth the effort. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Ireland is a neutral country, Ireland was neutral when Hitler was killing Jews, Romani, Homosexuals, Communists, the mentally and physically handicapped, the old and anyone who opposed him (sorry if I left anyone out, there was about 10 million of them).

Ireland turned away Jewish refugees.

Ireland was the only country in the world to offer condolences to German on the death of Hitler. Not even Switzerland did it.

Ireland is neutral but there is nothing noble about our neutrality.

Ireland does not sacrifice anything to be neutral, Ireland doesn't risk anything to be neutral, neutral is like the sticker on our back window that says "Baby on board", it protects us from harm.

Neutrality itself is not an end goal to the Ireland, it is there for a purpose, and if the USA needs military flights to pass through Shannon then we'll be a little less neutral for a while.

On the other hand, the USA spends lives, money and political goodwill by the bucket load in order to arrogantly, hypocritically parade through the streets of many broken nations proclaiming democracy and freedom.

irishh_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

yeah , the party of guns , gays and god are so pacifist in nature :rolleyes:

most republicans ( gop kind ) would deeply resent being labeled pacifist

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Selkies

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think he meant the republic of Ireland.

Executive Steve

themrhubarbs wrote: »

I know what you are trying to convey, however the country was at peace (for the most part) until the September 11 attacks.

It seems perfectly acceptable to me for a country to go to war based on that.

You cannot blame the government for the market situation, at least in America. The American system is so deregulated it is not funny.

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had anything to do with a bunch of Saudi terrorists committing the atrocity that was 9/11.

As for your point about the markets, perhaps a less laissez-faire regime where transparency, social justice and good corporate citizenship were encouraged by a stricter regulatory regime might well have curbed the worst excesses of the orgy of hypercapitalist excess that followed the removal of all the barriers to transnational capital? Just a thought...

Byron85

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If the IRA was the official armed force of the country you'd have a point, but it isn't and you don't.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Byron85

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about the long history of just as much or even more collusion between the British government, RUC and Loyalist/Unionist Paramilitaries, quite a lot of which is documented.

This is getting off the point anyway.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Selkies wrote: »

"Wars of aggression"
It is my understanding that you can't have war without aggression.

That, and the fact that you wrote "Ireland do not." as opposed to "Ireland does not." makes me wonder whether my reply is going to be worth the effort. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Ireland is a neutral country, Ireland was neutral when Hitler was killing Jews, Romani, Homosexuals, Communists, the mentally and physically handicapped, the old and anyone who opposed him (sorry if I left anyone out, there was about 10 million of them).

Ireland turned away Jewish refugees.

Ireland was the only country in the world to offer condolences to German on the death of Hitler. Not even Switzerland did it.

Ireland is neutral but there is nothing noble about our neutrality.

Ireland does not sacrifice anything to be neutral, Ireland doesn't risk anything to be neutral, neutral is like the sticker on our back window that says "Baby on board", it protects us from harm.

Neutrality itself is not an end goal to the Ireland, it is there for a purpose, and if the USA needs military flights to pass through Shannon then we'll be a little less neutral for a while.

On the other hand, the USA spends lives, money and political goodwill by the bucket load in order to arrogantly, hypocritically parade through the streets of many broken nations proclaiming democracy and freedom.

Everyone loves a grammar nazi, give yourself a well earned pat on the back while you congratulate yourself on your pedantry.

I loved your rant, but there is a difference between a garden variety war and a war of aggression. I'm guessing you already knew that though.

Selkies

karma_ wrote: »

Everyone loves a grammar nazi, give yourself a well earned pat on the back while you congratulate yourself on your pedantry.

I'm congratulating myself at the moment because you haven't replied to my argument, rather you have limited your distraction to my comments on the words you used in your argument.
That means I've won

karma_ wrote: »

I loved your rant, but there is a difference between a garden variety war and a war of aggression. I'm guessing you already knew that though.

I love the way you say "garden variety war". It makes them sound so trivial.

I didn't know what a "war of aggression" was. However it hasn't ceased to sound ridiculous since I learned the meaning.
It's based on the premise that there is a time that it is just to go to war.
Almost like as if there is ever a side in a war that isn't at fault.
It's as if there is ever a war that doesn't contain war crimes.
It's as if war doesn't turn men into monsters no matter what they are fighting for.

Even if there was such a thing as a just war who would tell us when it's happening?
Would the UN? The organisation that stands by, arguing over whether thousands dying constitutes a genocide, because they don't want to do anything.

Yes the Iraq war wasn't about attacking the home base of Al Qaeda or weapons of mass destruction, but in the same way, the vote from the UN wasn't about whether the war was going to be aggressive or not, the French and various other countries were busy selling arms to Iraq.

The point is that we can talk about who is the more evil country, but when it comes down to it, people are the same everywhere, hand people guns and someone will get shot.

We are not noble because we do not have weapons to fight with, we are lucky.

Memnoch

Selkis, I agree with your basic premise about human nature, that however does not and should not absolve those who commit wrong doings and atrocities, and we should always endeavour to hold them to account.

The HOPE is that as we progress as a species and a civilisation we will increasingly find better ways to resolve conflict and share resources. The trend is encouraging though not necessarily optimistic as yet. I do believe that there are countries that have a stronger moral outlook today in terms of respect of each other's human rights. Though there is much progress still to be made.

In terms of war, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a just war, but I think that in some circumstances war is certainly understandable. Especially when one is the victim of aggression.

The US led wars in Iraq and Afghanasthan were driven by a lust for greed and profit and were most definitely wars of aggression and should be condemned as such in no uncertain terms.

It's easy to say that people with power abuse it. But the only way to change the paradigm is to start holding those who do abuse it, accountable, the first step is to openly acknowledge their wrong doing and educate the world about it.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

During the late pre-1990s I could walk, run, swim like a fish, and read, but I preferred such works as the Little Prince over volumes by Will Durant, et al. History being history, I did later read a bit about times before the 1990s, and acknowledge that the two major parties underwent major shifts in political platforms over decades, as well as noting the range from liberal, moderate, to conservative branches of both major parties.

Your emphasis on individualism when commenting upon the vast diversity of ideas that exists for many persons both within and between parties is appreciated, although there does seem to be a large number of voters in each party that tend to mindlessly march to the beat of their respective drummers, voting Republican because they are registered Republicans, or voting Democrat because they are registered Democrats, rather than voting for the most qualified person.

The Tea Party voters tend to march to the sound of the same drummer, and a Republican drummer it is, not based upon their campaign rhetoric, but rather from the fact that they endorse only registered Republican candidates for congressional office 2 November 2010 (with the exception of one token Democrat).

All Republicans may not be Tea Party advocates, the Tea Party being a faction of the GOP, but all Tea Party endorsed candidates (except one) for US Congress are registered Republicans, ergo, the Tea Party is Republican.

Victor

So Dick and Bush.

And everyone else got screwed.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

along with two wars that were costing the tax payer almost a billion dollars a month

WRONG! Its about $10bn a month.

Selkies wrote: »

the UN? The organisation that stands by, arguing over whether thousands dying constitutes a genocide, because they don't want to do anything.

Sorry, you and your representatives* are the UN. Go give yourself a thrashing for not stopping genocide.

Yes the Iraq war wasn't about attacking the home base of Al Qaeda or weapons of mass destruction, but in the same way, the vote from the UN wasn't about whether the war was going to be aggressive or not, the French and various other countries were busy selling arms to Iraq.

The only countries that I am specificly aware of that broke the arms embargo on Iraq from 1990-2003(?) were Iraq, USA and UK.

Prior to that, while few American-made weapons ended up in Iraq, vast amounts of American-brokered weapons did.


* Assuming you aren't from a country with disputed recognition.

Selkies

Memnoch wrote: »

Selkis, I agree with your basic premise about human nature, that however does not and should not absolve those who commit wrong doings and atrocities, and we should always endeavour to hold them to account.

The HOPE is that as we progress as a species and a civilisation we will increasingly find better ways to resolve conflict and share resources. The trend is encouraging though not necessarily optimistic as yet. I do believe that there are countries that have a stronger moral outlook today in terms of respect of each other's human rights. Though there is much progress still to be made.

In terms of war, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a just war, but I think that in some circumstances war is certainly understandable. Especially when one is the victim of aggression.

The US led wars in Iraq and Afghanasthan were driven by a lust for greed and profit and were most definitely wars of aggression and should be condemned as such in no uncertain terms.

It's easy to say that people with power abuse it. But the only way to change the paradigm is to start holding those who do abuse it, accountable, the first step is to openly acknowledge their wrong doing and educate the world about it.

Absolutely that's why websites like this and KildareStreet.com are wonderful, because they open up politics that little bit more.

My point is not that what the US did wrong is somehow less wrong because if we were able to invade countries we probably would too.

My point is that we can't claim we are better than the US just because we haven't had the opportunities to take the evil action they have had, because if we look at the opportunities we have had to sacrifice our interests so that less harm would be done, we have about as good a record as the US.

You are right that we need more accountability but it's not just in other countries, it starts here.

Selkies

Victor wrote: »

Sorry, you and your representatives* are the UN. Go give yourself a thrashing for not stopping genocide.

Ireland does not have the ability to make the UN take action.

That said, I didn't do anything when it happened, I didn't even try to help.

I'm becoming more politically active.

Black Swan

Victor wrote: »

WRONG! Its about $10bn a month.

Hi Victor! Thanks for pointing out that the war expenditures are considerably higher. According to this source, Iraq alone is $12bn month during 2010.

Source: http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

Of course there were differences in spending estimates depending upon the source and timing of the estimate: "Pentagon spending in February, the most recent month available, was $6.7 billion in Afghanistan compared with $5.5 billion in Iraq."

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-05-12-afghan_N.htm

In any case, these two wars should never have been started by the US, have been a tragic waste of taxpayer's money ("cumulative cost of the two wars surpasses $1 trillion"), and the loss of over 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq and untold thousands per year in Afghanistan.

Source: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

kaiser sauze

I have read figures that stated the overall cost of these wars will be $3 trillion, I cannot find them now, has anyone else got this?

If true, it puts the $1trillion cost to overhaul the healthcare system into perspective.

Overheal

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I have read figures that stated the overall cost of these wars will be $3 trillion, I cannot find them now, has anyone else got this?

If true, it puts the $1trillion cost to overhaul the healthcare system into perspective.

http://www.costofwar.com/ says $1.1 Trillion for the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/05/sad-milestone-cost-wars-passes-1-trillion/ the $1 Trillion mark was surpassed this May.

$3 Trillion might have been accounted for in the overall military budget though over several years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States The Defense/Military budget for the US next year is expected to cost over $1 Trillion all by itself. Most of this increase is due to interest on debts, while overall the appropriations to military programs is expected to go into decline, but who's to say what will happen 2012+ when seats and offices change hands.

kaiser sauze

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.costofwar.com/ says $1.1 Trillion for the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/05/sad-milestone-cost-wars-passes-1-trillion/ the $1 Trillion mark was surpassed this May.

$3 Trillion might have been accounted for in the overall military budget though over several years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States The Defense/Military budget for the US next year is expected to cost over $1 Trillion all by itself. Most of this increase is due to interest on debts, while overall the appropriations to military programs is expected to go into decline, but who's to say what will happen 2012+ when seats and offices change hands.

Thanks.

I think what I read was, as you put it, the overall cost of the military budget each year. Typically, The annual US military budget in 'peacetime' is $500-600Bn.

It is still an extravagant amount of money from any perspective. How much has ended up in Haliburton's hands? :mad:

southsiderosie

msteiner wrote: »

My main question for all of those who question the judgement of the GOP is the following.

Who would you prefer, the Democrats who increase the deficit fifty percent faster than the GOP, or the GOP, a party that increases the deficit at a lower speed. If I had to choose, I'd pick the GOP because they are the lesser of two evils.

I would have more time for the GOP if they would distance themselves from social conservatives, xenophobes and Sarah Palin and her not-so-merry band of mama grizzlies. I can figure out how to move my money around, but there is not much I can do if there are restrictions on contraception or police departments are allowed to profile people who "look" like illegal immigrants.

Overheal

Im especially frustrated at the GOPs "Keep government out of our lives" but "We need laws that prevent people from having abortions, gays from getting married and everyone buying liquor on sunday, ban video games, ban evolutionary theory, teach religion every day of the week"

G'wan the libertarian.

Black Swan

The GOP will win back the House, but not the Senate. I wonder if the Republicans will still play the "Party of No" card when they represent half the US Congress?

The American electorate is soooooooo fickle and forgetful. The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for a decade, started two expensive wars, almost doubled the federal deficit under GW Bush, and deregulated the investment banking business in 2004 with Chairman Cox over the SEC, which all contributed to the greatest recession since the Great Depression. Now, only two years later the American electorate has forgotten who got them into this mess and now re-elect the Republicans. What a craic! :rolleyes:

kaiser sauze

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The GOP will win back the House, but not the Senate. I wonder if the Republicans will still play the "Party of No" card when they represent half the US Congress?

The American electorate is soooooooo fickle and forgetful. The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for a decade, started two expensive wars, almost doubled the federal deficit under GW Bush, and deregulated the investment banking business in 2004 with Chairman Cox over the SEC, which all contributed to the greatest recession since the Great Depression. Now, only two years later the American electorate has forgotten who got them into this mess and now re-elect the Republicans. What a craic! :rolleyes:

It's pretty insane that this bunch of hillbillies & bigots can even be considered for election; then again, we have a tendency to vote in Fianna Fáil over and over again, so we can't/shouldn't really pontificate to them too much.

southsiderosie

kaiser sauze wrote: »

It's pretty insane that this bunch of hillbillies & bigots can even be considered for election; then again, we have a tendency to vote in Fianna Fáil over and over again, so we can't/shouldn't really pontificate to them too much.

I think there are smart, decent people in the GOP, but they tend to get a lot of stick from the crazies, and many of them have retired. I generally vote democrat, but I would have given someone like Chuck Hegel a long hard look if he had decided to run for president; Colin Powell (in 2000) is another one. God, if only he had run instead of W!

kaiser sauze

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think there are smart, decent people in the GOP, but they tend to get a lot of stick from the crazies, and many of them have retired. I generally vote democrat, but I would have given someone like Chuck Hegel a long hard look if he had decided to run for president; Colin Powell (in 2000) is another one. God, if only he had run instead of W!

That is the problem, The GOP have been taken over by a rag-tag bunch of hillbillies who think that government spending a dollar on anything is an infringement of their constitutional rights.

The GOP themselves are too busy reading their bibles to realise how badly this will reflect on them in two years when nothing is achieved; they could be in line for a backlash even bigger than the one in 2006 & 2008.

Overheal

Anyone see Boehner's nauseum?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110306413.html

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

Anyone see Boehner's nauseum?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110306413.html

Actually, the most annoying thing about that article for me is that it seems like there are important policy issues (like education) that he truly cares about. But all of the partisan b.s. gets in the way. Why wouldn't the GOP want to be sure poor children get a good education? In part because so many people in their base will complain about "transfers from the white middle class" (as a poster did this week).

I really wish that when it came to the basics - infrastructure, health care, and education - that GOP leaders would just tell some of these people, for the good of the country, to just shut up.

Overheal

Colbert also congratulated the GOP, and Boehner, remarking that it is an historical milestone: the first Orange-American to ever be appointed speaker of the house.

Mr.Micro

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The GOP will win back the House, but not the Senate. I wonder if the Republicans will still play the "Party of No" card when they represent half the US Congress?

The American electorate is soooooooo fickle and forgetful. The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for a decade, started two expensive wars, almost doubled the federal deficit under GW Bush, and deregulated the investment banking business in 2004 with Chairman Cox over the SEC, which all contributed to the greatest recession since the Great Depression. Now, only two years later the American electorate has forgotten who got them into this mess and now re-elect the Republicans. What a craic! :rolleyes:

Spot on. Short termism and the disastrous policies that The Republicans including their wars have still to play out. Well I guess it is more of the same in future then.......the electorate can only blame themselves when it happens. The icing will be Palin in The White House in 2 years time?

kaiser sauze

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Spot on. Short termism and the disastrous policies that The Republicans including their wars have still to play out. Well I guess it is more of the same in future then.......the electorate can only blame themselves when it happens. The icing will be Palin in The White House in 2 years time?

:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

davyjose

meglome wrote: »

They took basically all regulation away from investment banks which led directly to the recession. Seems like their fault to me.

This was started by clinton, not Bush. Bush might have made it worse, but Clinton set the ball rolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Black Swan

davyjose wrote: »

This was started by clinton, not Bush. Bush might have made it worse, but Clinton set the ball rolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Bill Clinton did not endorse nor was he responsible for this Act, as he was a lame duck when it was passed and enacted in 1999; rather the Republican controlled US Congress enacted the legislation authored by Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (Republican, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (Republican, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.