The fundamental difference is that republicans believe taxpayer money should go to corporations and the wealthiest 2% of the population, then it will trickle down to help our economy. Democrats believe that taxpayer money should go to the lower and middle class, who will spend it to help our economy. The rich are gonna get most of it eventually, anyway.
Another viewpoint is that republicans are 100% owned by large corporations and the democrats are only 95% owned by corporations.
WRONG!
Its’ the Republicans in both cases. The GOP senators are sitting on hundreds of House bills that could help the economy.
You can’t say he’s failed until you allowed him to try.
C.A. Brobst, who has the majority in both the house and the senate? I’ll give you a hint it isn’t the Republicans. If the positions were reversed and the Democrats were sitting on hundreds of bills that could help the economy would you still say that they were hurting the country, or more likely, would you say that they are standing up to the party that is in power?
As to letting him try, if he hasn’t been trying then Heaven help us when he does.
^ I know, right? Righties claim that a solid majority gives you carte blanch to do whatever you want, so why didn’t they get all of this fixed up in the 6 years they held them?
^^ Or are you saying that Republicans in their minority now have stopped a great deal of progress, in saying Democrats “stopped” the Republicans for 6 years?
Didn’t care about those when it came to ratcheting up deficits and tax cuts for his buddies. The difference is that those wouldn’t cost him votes - cutting down F&F would.
Couldn’t it be said that the Republicans say NO because they can not see where the money is going to come from to pay for all those grand programs? No money no programs. Why not try that for a while.
Church, I’m not buying it. If Bush really wanted to reform F&F, he could push it through, just like it happened for the no less controversial healthcare bill of his. In fact, a F&F reform bill of a sort did pass, IIRC, in 2005.
Now, I find the idea that Bush wanted to do oh so much, but had his hands tied. First, as already was said, they happened to have a majority in Congress. It served them well on other issues where they ran roughshod over the Dems - why not here? Second, a lot of people on whom Fannie and Freddie depend are appointed by the government. In fact ,a lot of what they do is dictated by the housing and urban development agencies - over which the president’s administration has control. Now, those agencies didn’t exactly rein in Fannie Mae - in fact, might have done the opposite (as per http://tinyurl.com/3l4enj) - allowing riskier mortgages to be guaranteed.In 2004, the HUD actually loosened the controls. Subsidized housing is popular, after all, and there was pressure to keep up with the market.
The Bush administration did not lack the tools to influence Fannie and Freddie, even aside from laws. If it did not use them, maybe it was because it did not want to, despite its protestations to the contrary.
“But again, you are dismissing how laws get written and passed,”
I’m not sure what you think I am “dismissing”. Sure, there will likely be some disunity on unpopular measures, but I’d say a party that holds both the executive and legislative branches - even with a minor majority - can do a lot of things about any actor that relies on the government.
gngbfly Premium Member over 13 years ago
Like I said: Damocrap - Repugnantone …… what’s the difference?
eepatte over 13 years ago
gngbfly,
The fundamental difference is that republicans believe taxpayer money should go to corporations and the wealthiest 2% of the population, then it will trickle down to help our economy. Democrats believe that taxpayer money should go to the lower and middle class, who will spend it to help our economy. The rich are gonna get most of it eventually, anyway.
Another viewpoint is that republicans are 100% owned by large corporations and the democrats are only 95% owned by corporations.
grapfhics over 13 years ago
Okay, who can wiggle their ears?
Charles Brobst Premium Member over 13 years ago
WRONG! Its’ the Republicans in both cases. The GOP senators are sitting on hundreds of House bills that could help the economy. You can’t say he’s failed until you allowed him to try.
halfabug over 13 years ago
hundreds?
Wing-Nut over 13 years ago
C.A. Brobst, who has the majority in both the house and the senate? I’ll give you a hint it isn’t the Republicans. If the positions were reversed and the Democrats were sitting on hundreds of bills that could help the economy would you still say that they were hurting the country, or more likely, would you say that they are standing up to the party that is in power?
As to letting him try, if he hasn’t been trying then Heaven help us when he does.
raycity over 13 years ago
CA Brobst would vote for his dog if it was a liberal demacrate.
josefw over 13 years ago
Wing-Nut, save your breath, See C.A. Brobst post on Steve Benson’s toon today.
http://www.gocomics.com/stevebenson/2010/09/11/
He drank more than Kool-Ade!
mnsmkd over 13 years ago
Brobst, You’ve been drinking the KoolAid!
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“what’s the difference?”
According to history : http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266156/10.gifoneoldhat over 13 years ago
gop senators are blocking hundreds of bills that would destroy USA - C A B is right off the deep end
Chocktaw over 13 years ago
Bush had solid majorities in both houses for 6 years, he could have destroyed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, if he wanted to.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ I know, right? Righties claim that a solid majority gives you carte blanch to do whatever you want, so why didn’t they get all of this fixed up in the 6 years they held them?
^^ Or are you saying that Republicans in their minority now have stopped a great deal of progress, in saying Democrats “stopped” the Republicans for 6 years?
Redeemd over 13 years ago
Wait till the rest of the baby-boomers retire, then we’ll see the real dip.
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
“Really, but but what about the poor and junk. ”
Didn’t care about those when it came to ratcheting up deficits and tax cuts for his buddies. The difference is that those wouldn’t cost him votes - cutting down F&F would.
surferbob over 13 years ago
Couldn’t it be said that the Republicans say NO because they can not see where the money is going to come from to pay for all those grand programs? No money no programs. Why not try that for a while.
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
Church, I’m not buying it. If Bush really wanted to reform F&F, he could push it through, just like it happened for the no less controversial healthcare bill of his. In fact, a F&F reform bill of a sort did pass, IIRC, in 2005.
Now, I find the idea that Bush wanted to do oh so much, but had his hands tied. First, as already was said, they happened to have a majority in Congress. It served them well on other issues where they ran roughshod over the Dems - why not here? Second, a lot of people on whom Fannie and Freddie depend are appointed by the government. In fact ,a lot of what they do is dictated by the housing and urban development agencies - over which the president’s administration has control. Now, those agencies didn’t exactly rein in Fannie Mae - in fact, might have done the opposite (as per http://tinyurl.com/3l4enj) - allowing riskier mortgages to be guaranteed.In 2004, the HUD actually loosened the controls. Subsidized housing is popular, after all, and there was pressure to keep up with the market.
The Bush administration did not lack the tools to influence Fannie and Freddie, even aside from laws. If it did not use them, maybe it was because it did not want to, despite its protestations to the contrary.
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
“But again, you are dismissing how laws get written and passed,”
I’m not sure what you think I am “dismissing”. Sure, there will likely be some disunity on unpopular measures, but I’d say a party that holds both the executive and legislative branches - even with a minor majority - can do a lot of things about any actor that relies on the government.