• 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!

Shift on executive power lets Obama bypass rivals

apdst said:
Which one of Bush's policies caused the recession?

I mean, we're still in a recession 3 years into Obama's only term and you don't place any responsibility at his door step. Nothing new there, though...huh?
Click to expand...

Bush's tax cuts contributed to the recession by creating excess liquidity which fueled the housing bubble. He actually prevented the states from enforcing stricter predatory lending laws, which also helped inflate the housing bubble. But mostly what he did was sit there with his thumb up his ass while the derivatives markets were going bat**** crazy.

I've pointed this out to you before, and don't expect it will help to point it out again, but the recession ended in the summer of 2009.
 
Boo Radley said:
You seem to lack basic understanding. Perhaps your reading is influenced by your prejudices?




Do I need to define that word for you? They got bolder. They had targets close and could use others. Emboldened.
Click to expand...

So, we didn't do nything but motivate them? That's usually the natural response when an enemy come under attack. What's your solution? Do nothing and hope they stop hating us, one day? I'm sure that will work great. :rofl
 
apdst said:
So, we didn't do nything but motivate them? That's usually the natural response when an enemy come under attack. What's your solution? Do nothing and hope they stop hating us, one day? I'm sure that will work great. :rofl
Click to expand...

Our enemy wasn't under attack. Iraq was. Our enemy merely took advantage of that.

My solution would have been to keep our head, and quietly, but surely and actually track down and take out our enemy. Fight smart, with smaller, more surgical efforts. And not stupid as we did. I no, novel concept, but that would have been a better approach.
 
Boo Radley said:
Our enemy wasn't under attack. Iraq was. Our enemy merely took advantage of that.

My solution would have been to keep our head, and quietly, but surely and actually track down and take out our enemy. Fight smart, with smaller, more surgical efforts. And not stupid as we did. I no, novel concept, but that would have been a better approach.
Click to expand...

Terrorism is not something that happens abroad on a large scale when the country being targeted is vastly superior. Why? Becuase aside from what they like you to think, they aren't stupid. We have been bombing that country for ten freaking years before the second Gulf War. The didn't have to provoke us into anything, we were already there and all the air strikes that were carried out in that period killed more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. And this was "peacetime". You think terrorists were stupid enough to provoke the full aggression of the US by attacking their native soil? "Terrorism" for them is more reasonably called "resistance" to occupation and it largely occurs in their own occupied country because they want US forces out of it. You really have no idea what has been going on their, how people feel, and the historical extent to which these feelings are buried.

Being in the military and knowing the sophistication of both military and civilians air control procedures, there is absolutely no way this attack could have succeeded even if they did manage to actually hijack without considerable alarm having gone off well before the planes hit. The only people who were meant to be provoked on 9/11 were the American people. And we fell for it and are, apparently, still falling for it.
 
Last edited:
makmugens said:
Terrorism is not something that happens abroad on a large scale when the country being targeted is vastly superior. Why? Becuase aside from what they like you to think, they aren't stupid. We have been bombing that country for ten freaking years before the second Gulf War. The didn't have to provoke us into anything, we were already there and all the air strikes that were carried out in that period killed more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. And this was "peacetime". You think terrorists were stupid enough to provoke the full aggression of the US by attacking their native soil? "Terrorism" for them is more reasonably called "resistance" to occupation and it largely occurs in their own occupied country because they want US forces out of it. You really have no idea what has been going on their, how people feel, and the historical extent to which these feelings are buried.
Click to expand...

While I don't think we should have invaded Iraq, I sure as hell know Iraq wasn't an innocent little country being oppressed by the big bad USA. Iraq started a lot of this by invading Kuwait in the first place.

makmugens said:
Being in the military and knowing the sophistication of both military and civilians air control procedures, there is absolutely no way this attack could have succeeded even if they did manage to actually hijack without considerable alarm having gone off well before the planes hit. The only people who were meant to be provoked on 9/11 were the American people. And we fell for it and are, apparently, still falling for it.
Click to expand...

Please tell us you are not a "truther" that believes the U.S. government was behind 9/11. If so, there is no reasoning with you because logic has gone byw-byw out the window with you if that is the case.
 
AdamT said:
Bush's tax cuts contributed to the recession by creating excess liquidity which fueled the housing bubble. He actually prevented the states from enforcing stricter predatory lending laws, which also helped inflate the housing bubble. But mostly what he did was sit there with his thumb up his ass while the derivatives markets were going bat**** crazy.

I've pointed this out to you before, and don't expect it will help to point it out again, but the recession ended in the summer of 2009.
Click to expand...

"excess liquidity"? Yeah, that hurt the economy, alright.

Where do you people come up with this crap? :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
Our enemy wasn't under attack. Iraq was. Our enemy merely took advantage of that.

My solution would have been to keep our head, and quietly, but surely and actually track down and take out our enemy. Fight smart, with smaller, more surgical efforts. And not stupid as we did. I no, novel concept, but that would have been a better approach.
Click to expand...

We drew out thousands of jihadists, into the open, so we could kill them.

We put many-a-jihadi on ice in Iraq. We forced him to fight a fight that he wasn't prepared for. That's the objective of any military force, to choose the time and place to fight. You know that, right?
 
apdst said:
"excess liquidity"? Yeah, that hurt the economy, alright.

Where do you people come up with this crap? :lamo
Click to expand...

Good comeback. :lol:
 
j-mac said:
When President Bush was passing agenda items through executive order, liberals were screaming like stuck pigs that it was beyond his authority. But, now that it is Obama bypassing Congress it's all good eh?

Constitutional is the key. We are already seeing that much of his agenda is NOT constitutional.

j-mac
Click to expand...

First of all Bush had a rubber stamp Congress that passed everything he asked for. His executive orders were for things that he wouldn't have dared to ask Congress for like waterboarding prisoners.
I appaud Obama for going around the obstructionist Congress any way he can, unlike Bush, he has a background in Constitutional law.
 
tecoyah said:
I see, so we should compare the deficits created when attempting to recover from recession, to those created due to warfare and economic policy that likely led to said recession?
Click to expand...

Uh, sure, when you're referring to the "worst deficit we've ever seen."

This is a very poor rebuttal...almost as bad as apdst's complete lack of one.

Neither of you in any way addressed the validity of my comments, and instead proceed to avoid them by attacking first me, then Obama and the after effects of the recession I was commenting on in the first place.

This is certainly not debate, and instead ignorance incarnate.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you think this babbling is about.
 
apdst said:
There's no point responding to anyone who still thinks Bush de-regulated the banking industry that his policies, alone, caused the recession.

There's the real ignorance.
Click to expand...

I agree. It was Phil Gramm and his GOP cohorts (like John McCain) in the Senate that deregulated the banks. GW merely helped implement the subprime mortgage scam that resulted from it.


Fannie and Freddie were just another investor for the banks to swindle. GW Bush himself turned bankers shill and boasted that he got Fannie to commit to 440 Billion $ to buy the new subprimes in his 2002 "Minority Housing Initiative Program." He even evoked 911 and promised that the plan would "turn incredible evil into incredible good," I swear, I'm not making that up. Heres the bit about Fannie in 2002


And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.
Click to expand...
HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)
Can you believe he actually said "It's in their charter, it NOW needs to be implemented"? If you know why?, it all will make sense. Anyway there's plenty more, but I fear your brain might explode. If you are wondering where Ole Phil Gramm is now, he's on the board at UBS Bank. where else?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
There's no point responding to anyone who still thinks Bush de-regulated the banking industry that his policies, alone, caused the recession.

There's the real ignorance.
Click to expand...

I did not say those things, nor do I think them...still perhaps limiting communication between us is a good idea...Thus, the ignore function.
 
It is a funny thing, when a conservative wins or is declared the winner by a Court his followers declare 'elections have meaning' and the President should get the people he wants to help run his Administration. When a democrat wins then the people he wants to help run his administration are declared commies or some such and held up.

But the very premise of the OP is flawed. There is no shift on executive power. St Ronald used it and set the precedent long before Obama gained the White House. For that matter The War Powers Act ripped open the floodgate before some of you were even a twinkle in your saint of a mother's eye.

When the minority leader of the Senate declares his first priority isn't creating jobs, or fighting terror, or finance reform, or even tax relief...

no he declared his first priority was to make sure President Obama will be a one term President...

Kind of makes you think you will need another way to get anything done... :roll:

A thought on not being able to get ducks in a row, seems Speaker of the House Boehner has the same failure of leadership as well. Part of the problem with ducks is if you reach out to some more moderate ducks on the other side of the pond some of your more radical ducks bristle and refuse to play.

Another problem is if the ducks on the other side of the pond do their damnest to make a twisted issue out of anything coming down from the Presidential Office.

But repeating Fox Noise talking points about ducks is easier than seeing whats really going on.

Quack...
 
apdst said:
At least I'm not blaming, "excess liquidity", for the recession. :lamo
Click to expand...
Ah, well that explains your lack of understanding of what drives a bubble......that caused the recession.

Nothing to see here, move along.
 
tecoyah said:
I agree with you final statement...wholeheartedly.

However, as for point one:
"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries."

View attachment 67126484

And yes, we live in a complex world that deals our Presidents the unforseen. There are issues that require spending...but we try to choose our leaders with wisdom in mind.
Click to expand...

PROJECTED surplus that never happened. NEVER. The National debts figures can be found here. Surplus = National debt goes down, Deficit = National debt goes up.
 
Phoenix said:
PROJECTED surplus that never happened. NEVER. The National debts figures can be found here. Surplus = National debt goes down, Deficit = National debt goes up.
Click to expand...

Standard wingnut talking point No. 12....

There are two accounts that people talk about: the gross debt and the debt held by the public. There was a surplus in the latter during Clinton's second term and that is what people refer to when they say he ran a surplus.

But it's a bit of a moot point, because even if you look a the gross debt there is no question that Clinton reduced the deficits he inherited to nearly zero.
 
iguanaman said:
I agree. It was Phil Gramm and his GOP cohorts (like John McCain) in the Senate that deregulated the banks. GW merely helped implement the subprime mortgage scam that resulted from it.






HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)
Can you believe he actually said "It's in their charter, it NOW needs to be implemented"? If you know why?, it all will make sense. Anyway there's plenty more, but I fear your brain might explode. If you are wondering where Ole Phil Gramm is now, he's on the board at UBS Bank. where else?
Click to expand...

No kidding? Is he an Obama bundler too?

One of President Obama’s largest financial backers is a key executive at the largest Swiss bank in the world, complicating his criticism of presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

Robert Wolf is president of Swiss financial giant UBS Investment Bank and chairman of UBS Americas. He has been one of Obama’s most prolific fundraisers dating back to 2006, when the former Senator from Illinois initiated his run for the White House.

Wolf has bundled more than $500,000 for the president’s reelection, campaign records show. He is but one of many wealthy bankers Obama has turned to in an effort to win a second term.

According to campaign reporter John Heilemann, Obama and Wolf first met in December 2006 in a conference room owned by liberal billionaire George Soros
Obama
 
iguanaman said:
I agree. It was Phil Gramm and his GOP cohorts (like John McCain) in the Senate that deregulated the banks. GW merely helped implement the subprime mortgage scam that resulted from it.


Fannie and Freddie were just another investor for the banks to swindle. GW Bush himself turned bankers shill and boasted that he got Fannie to commit to 440 Billion $ to buy the new subprimes in his 2002 "Minority Housing Initiative Program." He even evoked 911 and promised that the plan would "turn incredible evil into incredible good," I swear, I'm not making that up. Heres the bit about Fannie in 2002



HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)
Can you believe he actually said "It's in their charter, it NOW needs to be implemented"? If you know why?, it all will make sense. Anyway there's plenty more, but I fear your brain might explode. If you are wondering where Ole Phil Gramm is now, he's on the board at UBS Bank. where else?
Click to expand...

You might wanna stop trying to hang everything on Bush's door and go allllllll the way back to the Carter administration, to see when the first CRA was passed.

Seriosuly, dude! Read a book sometime.
 
tecoyah said:
I did not say those things, nor do I think them...still perhaps limiting communication between us is a good idea...Thus, the ignore function.
Click to expand...

The hell you didn't.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Ah, well that explains your lack of understanding of what drives a bubble......that caused the recession.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Click to expand...

Right! A bubble, created by government legislation, not one president's polices.
 
Apparently Obama has plans for gun owners without the assistance of Congress after the fall election.

Obama: “I’m working on gun control under the radar” | Greeley Gazette

Obama: “I’m working on gun control under the radar”
Plans include enacting restrictions via executive order, bypassing Congress

by Jack Minor

While the Obama administration said it is committed to gun rights, a gun control advocate has spilled the beans, saying Obama is using stealth to work on firearms restrictions.

The Washington Post did a story on Steve Croley, the White House gun control czar. Croley is considered to be an expert on regulation and tort law. His approach to gun control appears to be a regulatory one.

According to the article, Jim and Sarah Brady visited Capital Hill on March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan; to push for a ban on "large magazines."

The couple reportedly were meeting with press secretary, Jay Carney, when, according to Sarah Brady, the President came in. She said the President told her he wanted to talk about gun control and "fill us in that it was very much on his agenda."

She went on to say Obama told her, "I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

The statement reinforces an article in the Huffington Post describing how the administration is exploring ways to bypass Congress and enact gun control through executive action.

The Department of Justice reportedly is holding meetings discussing the White House's options for enacting regulations on its own or through adjoining agencies and departments. "Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. "
Click to expand...

So what does gun control mean to a liberal democrat?

Didn't Joe Biden take credit for constructing the Clinton assault weapons ban?
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
That's a funny site. I may send it to Cobert. It might help him with material. ;)
Click to expand...


Typical response. No addressing the information, just attack the source. Joe, you are off your game today, maybe you need a break.

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom