• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Republicans Cave on Payroll Tax Cuts Extension

All Hail Barney Frank


More powerfull then a republican congress, senate and President

More powerfull then the trillion dollar financial industry

Barney Frank a true superman

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac certainly got their money's worth from him. As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, he was well positioned to block all reforms.
 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac certainly got their money's worth from him. As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, he was well positioned to block all reforms.

All hail Barney Frank Master of the Universe

He can crush the weak Republican congress, Senate and President with just a pen.
 
All hail Barney Frank Master of the Universe

He can crush the weak Republican congress, Senate and President with just a pen.

Come back on your 15th birthday and maybe we can have a big boy discussion.
 
It was balanced to the point where we were beginning to pay back our debt, but let's not give Clinton all the credit. It also took a Republican congress to force Clinton to do it. It was essentially part of Newt's Contract with America. Clinton did sign off on it though. Like I have always said, it takes two to tango, and back in those days, the 2 parties were willing to dance with each other. Today, they would shoot each other if they got the chance. LOL.
I disagree with the idea the Contract with America has the same impact as the tax increase Clinton pushed. In fact, I believe it was actually far less impactful than we're led to believe it was, as some of it never actually made it's way to law. The tax increase was the main vehicle that reduced the budget deficit imo. Republicans are given way too much credit, particularly when they spend as much time as possible trying to undermine that tax increase during Clinton tenure.

BTW, giving Newt credit is no different than me giving Clinton credit.
 
You are right on both counts. Hmmm, wonder who took control of both houses of Congress in 2006 ??

Please tell us why this is actually relevant. Support you claim with actual legislation that would have caused any problems.
 
He ran on it...but openly opposed the version passed by the GOP congress even though he signed it. He vowed to go back and 'fix' it...never happened. He was in many ways a populist. Not unlike the presence and support of the Kyoto Protocol...which he never so much as submitted for passage.

Saying you are for something...running on something is far different from doing it.

He didn't run on passing the GOP version of welfare reform.
 
So now you're complaining that he signed a Republican welfare reform bill, after running on welfare reform?

Give it up.

Sigh...
No...I'm not complaining that he signed it...simply pointing out the fact that while he like republicans RAN on welfare reform, he didn't propose welfare reform for congress to consider (something you kinda have to do if you are...you know...RUNNING on it) and instead allowed a GOP congress to mandate what welfare looked like. Clinton opposed what the GOP passed...said it was too restrictive and vowed to go back later and fix it...which he never did.

The process WORKED. Congress debated and passed legislation. The president signed said legislation. Kudos all around. It is appropriate for all sides to claim credit for it. It is inappropriate and incorrect to say Clinton reformed welfare.
 
Sigh...
No...I'm not complaining that he signed it...simply pointing out the fact that while he like republicans RAN on welfare reform, he didn't propose welfare reform for congress to consider (something you kinda have to do if you are...you know...RUNNING on it) and instead allowed a GOP congress to mandate what welfare looked like. Clinton opposed what the GOP passed...said it was too restrictive and vowed to go back later and fix it...which he never did.

The process WORKED. Congress debated and passed legislation. The president signed said legislation. Kudos all around. It is appropriate for all sides to claim credit for it. It is inappropriate and incorrect to say Clinton reformed welfare.

Again, you have a real problem with facts. In fact Clinton produced a welfare reform proposal two years before it finally passed. Obviously he couldn't introduce his own proposal, since Republicans controlled Congress. He vetoed GOP proposals twice before he got a bill that he considered to be a reasonable compromise. No, he didn't support it 100%; that's what compromise means. You get some of what you want and they get some of what they want. That's how things get done in Washington.
 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac certainly got their money's worth from him. As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, he was well positioned to block all reforms.

Wait..you mean Mike Oxley and Jim Leach right? Both Republicans. Barney Frank only took over in 2007....pretty much right before the collapse.
 
Again, you have a real problem with facts. In fact Clinton produced a welfare reform proposal two years before it finally passed. Obviously he couldn't introduce his own proposal, since Republicans controlled Congress. He vetoed GOP proposals twice before he got a bill that he considered to be a reasonable compromise. No, he didn't support it 100%; that's what compromise means. You get some of what you want and they get some of what they want. That's how things get done in Washington.

or used to, back when they were getting things done.
 
Come back on your 15th birthday and maybe we can have a big boy discussion.

When you have something worthwhile to discuss, I will show up with facts and figures worthy of any discussion

When someone claims that a singular Democratic congressman, one congressman out of more then 400 has the ability direct government policy against the will of a republican controlled congress, a republican controlled senate and a republican president, I respond with the same level of idiocy as a means to show how stupid such ideas are.

Did/Does Barney Frank have/had influence, most definately, but not enough to overpower what was in fact a republican controlled government. Republicans had to go along with any policy Barney Frank may have had or desired to have put in place.
 
Again, you have a real problem with facts. In fact Clinton produced a welfare reform proposal two years before it finally passed. Obviously he couldn't introduce his own proposal, since Republicans controlled Congress. He vetoed GOP proposals twice before he got a bill that he considered to be a reasonable compromise. No, he didn't support it 100%; that's what compromise means. You get some of what you want and they get some of what they want. That's how things get done in Washington.

This is a gross distortion of the lay-of-the-land at the time. When Clinton took office in 1992, he also had a Democrat plurality in both Houses, to include 57 Senators and a 258-176-1 edge in the House. It was into the highly favorable environment that you claim he could not get his welfare reform passed "2 years prior".

It was the Republican takeover in 1995 the got it done. It was not so much Clinton sending it back as it was the GOP shoving it down his throat.
 
This is a gross distortion of the lay-of-the-land at the time. When Clinton took office in 1992, he also had a Democrat plurality in both Houses, to include 57 Senators and a 258-176-1 edge in the House. It was into the highly favorable environment that you claim he could not get his welfare reform passed "2 years prior".

It was the Republican takeover in 1995 the got it done. It was not so much Clinton sending it back as it was the GOP shoving it down his throat.

Sure, he could have taken it up in his first two years. But he chose to take on HCR first. I'm sure he would have done it differently in hindsight. But in fact Republicans did control both houses when it was taken up, and Clinton did have a detailed plan. In the end Clinton got most of what he wanted. Republicans obtained less generous benefits than Clinton wanted and removed support for legal immigrants. :shrug:
 
Sure, he could have taken it up in his first two years. But he chose to take on HCR first. I'm sure he would have done it differently in hindsight. But in fact Republicans did control both houses when it was taken up, and Clinton did have a detailed plan. In the end Clinton got most of what he wanted. Republicans obtained less generous benefits than Clinton wanted and removed support for legal immigrants. :shrug:
So...by your own admission...he DIDNT take it on and in fact the GOP DID and he accepted a plan which he said he didnt approve of. Which is...hmmm...precisely what I said.
 
This is a gross distortion of the lay-of-the-land at the time. When Clinton took office in 1992, he also had a Democrat plurality in both Houses, to include 57 Senators and a 258-176-1 edge in the House. It was into the highly favorable environment that you claim he could not get his welfare reform passed "2 years prior".

Yes, because unlike the GOP, the Dems do not always vote the same. There's an old saying that applies - Democrats have to fall in love; Republicans have to fall in line
 
So...by your own admission...he DIDNT take it on and in fact the GOP DID and he accepted a plan which he said he didnt approve of. Which is...hmmm...precisely what I said.

Um, no, I said that he didn't take it on before the midterm elections -- not that he didn't take it on at all. And he accepted a plan that was mostly, but not entirely, to his liking, which is not the same thing as saying that he didn't approve of it.
 
The Wikipedia article on this is pretty informative:
A central pledge of President Clinton’s campaign was to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients. However, by 1994, the Clinton Administration appeared to be more concerned with universal health care and no details or a plan had emerged on welfare reform. Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare, and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as ninety days. Gingrich insisted that the Republican Party would continue to apply political pressure to the President to approve welfare legislation.[10]

In 1996, after constructing two welfare reform bills that were vetoed by President Clinton[11], Gingrich and his supporters pushed for the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), a bill aimed at substantially reconstructing the welfare system. Introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr., the act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government's responsibilities. It instituted the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which placed time limits on welfare assistance and replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Other changes to the welfare system included stricter conditions for food stamps eligibility, reductions in immigrant welfare assistance, and recipient work requirements.[12]

Gingrich and Clinton negotiated the legislation in private meetings. Previously, Clinton had quietly spoken with Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott for months about the bill, but a compromise on a more acceptable bill for the President could not be reached. Gingrich, on the other hand, gave accurate information about his party’s vote counts and persuaded more conservative members of the Republican Party to vote in favor of PRWORA.[11]

President Clinton found the legislation more conservative than he would have preferred; however, having vetoed two earlier welfare proposals from the Republican-majority Congress, it was considered a political risk to veto a third bill during a campaign season with welfare reform as a central theme.[11] As he signed the bill on August 22, 1996, Clinton stated that the act "gives us a chance we haven't had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives."[13]

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So basically, the Republicans never quite gave Clinton a bill he wanted, so he decided to compromise more on the third try.
 
Yes, because unlike the GOP, the Dems do not always vote the same. There's an old saying that applies - Democrats have to fall in love; Republicans have to fall in line


Oh come on. To think that we didn't see Pelosi walking the halls with that over sized cartoon gavel, whipping the demo's into a singular voting block is laughable.


j-mac
 
The Wikipedia article on this is pretty informative:


Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So basically, the Republicans never quite gave Clinton a bill he wanted, so he decided to compromise more on the third try.


Well, Wiki can be misleading, but yes, Clinton was forced to compromise to get this done. The striking thing though to me, is that usually in DC, to demo's "compromise" usually means that repubs have to adopt their view on matters, when this happened Clinton came to what Newt, and the people of this country wanted. Which is what sets him apart from the current occupant of that office.


j-mac
 
The striking thing though to me, is that usually in DC, to demo's "compromise" usually means that repubs have to adopt their view on matters,

That's because you're partisan.

Your comment is especially laughable since it follows an example of just the opposite.
 
Never said I wasn't.

Ok. Then something that has bugged me for some time now...And I know that it isn't on point of the thread, but if I could, Why not show what your lean is? Why hide behind the "undisclosed", or "other", or any designation that seems to be rather deceptive as to your ideology?


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom