Republicans never had a super-majority...which means Democratic had the votes to BLOCK certain measures...

Just because you lead by a few seats doesn't mean that the majority wins...

All you have to do is see how the Republicans block things the Democratic majority wanted for the last 2 years...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

excuse after excuse. geeeez they screwed the pooch. get over it. the right is out of hand.

__________________
Talking about music is like dancing about architecture

What a pointless reply...

READ THE ARTICLE.
It doesn't talk about "things the republicans wanted but the democrats blocked".
It talks about "things the republicans wanted, AND THEN THEY GOT THEM..."

I'll give you that the barbarians have been inside the gate wrecking havoc, but this President has done nothing till the very last minute to try to help the situation. And I resent that h called or teleconferenced the congress. He should have been there.

__________________

Sure yeah, right .

Bush and the Republicans forced people to take out loans they couldn't afford and forced lenders to make loans that were bad and forced speculators to buy bad loan options and ...

Give me a break!

Dems did nothing while all this was building up too, and haven't done a damn thing for the last two years with their majority.

Whether you like it or not, AMERICANS allowed this whole economic crisis to happen with our greed and lack of and ability to hold people accountable. For you to not get that and bitch and moan that it was simply just Bush's fault, to me, is simply you being partisan.

__________________

I must agree. Bush has done a dismal job in the Oval office, but to blame him alone for the current state of the economy is unfair and inaccurate. The problem comes from way back and with the complicity of Dems, Reps, and the people who elected them into office. No one was crying foul when they were racking up those credit card bills, driving those new cars, and moving into those big homes. Granted there are measures he could have taken to prevent it to some degree - I'm not sure at this point that those floodgates could have been closed once opened - had his attention not been so focused on "other issues". But not averting disaster is not the same as causing it.

Ahhh strawman...
Still as flimsy as ever...

I have already explained there are MULTIPLE FACTORS going on in this economic problem.
The mortgage "loans" are JUST PART of it.
And THAT I do NOT give Bush any "exclusive" blame for. That PARTICULAR FACTOR has a universal share of blame...

I wish I could mandate that anybody who wants to reply in this thread would actually HAVE TO READ the article that this thread is about...
If you did, you would see the REAL REASONS that the author is blaming Bush for, instead of making up these lame strawman arguments...


With a fairly slim lead in both houses, and the White House in Bush's hands?
Gee. I wonder why...

I know you love saying that word, but like that guy from The Princess Bride who kept saying 'Inconceivable!', I don't think it means what you think it means. I love when I can make a Princess Bride reference.

There are multiple factors that go into the economic problem, however the author of the article and you are only interested in scoring political points by blaming Bush, and only Bush.

Since that is the goal, it's not a straw man argument to point out that there are indeed, other large factors.

I'm insulted you think I haven't read the article. Just because you don't like that I disagree with this former member of the Clinton administration and current advisor to Obama doesn't mean I can't cite factors that he doesn't in his article as to the distress of the economy. For you to whine 'strawman', as if that was even applicable here, just means your're not capable of extending beyond the partisan article you fell in love with.

Fairly slim. I'm sure you wouldn't describe what the Republicans had as 'fairly slim'. Never mind that Dems currently enjoy a larger majority in the house than Reps did in the previous Congress.

What I dislike is when clear partisans, such as yourself and the writer of this article, attempt to pretend they're not partisan and get defiant if you point out they are behaving so.

Telling me I can't refer to other obvious factors, that I can only address the author's partisan critiques of the Bush administration, and then erroneously screaming straw man because I don't want to play your little reindeer game is just silly.

Is the author correct about some of the causes for the poor economic situation? Surely he is. It's what he leaves out that's more telling...

__________________

I wonder if they do gain a majority in the senate and house, if the Democrats will lock the Republicans out (literally) while they decide policy like the Reps did under Reagan/Bush I/Eisenhower?

__________________

What are you talking about?

Tell you what, I just help you rather than criticize you on this:

List of United States Congresses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe if you look you'll find that Republicans controlled both the Senate and House in 2 of the 20 years you just claimed they did (Eisenhower's first two, that's it). You'll also find that Dems controlled both 12 of those 20 years. That leaves 6 years in which they were split.

Your entire mindset is based on a completely false premise. If anyone was locking someone out of the legislative process it was the Democrats. Who knows what Reagan/Bush I/and especially Eisenhower could have accomplished were the Dems not completely in control of Congress and obstructing them during much of their presidencies.

So to speak to what you were wondering about, indeed the Dems are historically very good at completely locking Republicans out of the process. In fact, that scenario of yours is exactly what I fear the most.

__________________