Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That would be in ADDITION to the Minimum wage issue. When raises were forced up, people were laid off, no job = no money to PAY for that mortgage they were allowed to get, which further complicated your housing bubble note above.
Additionally, wages go up, people got laid off, prices when up to finish compensating for increased labor costs, additionally, everyone already making MORE than minimum wage saw their wages artificially deflated, if they did not receive a raise in proportion to the minimum wage increase.
Puhleez, there is no proof that the minimum wage increase lead to the Great recession. It's a crap theory by the RWNJ faction to "blame" the meltdown on the lower income faction.
Look up Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the bill that Clinton signed, written by three GOP hacks, and tell me it didn't lead to the meltdown.
Has anyone ever tried to figure out why those last two years were so bad? If so have you noticed that the Democrats controlled Congress during both of them and the House two year earlier than that? Is there a chance that too many of the troubles of that period had something to do with the Democrats being in control with Bush forced to be a lame duck. I got to wondering today about this and here is a good explanation.
I don't expect you to remember it, but democrats regained control largely on the mess republicans had created. The great republican economic times lasted all but two years after a pathetic recovery out of 2001 recession. Engaged in two wars, "mission accomplished" banner, and an economy riding high pretty much entirely on "willingness" of financial institutions, and the politicians, to leverage at over 30:1 leading to easy credit. And of course, all five of them turned out to be a disaster.
But, I'm sure, patriotic, real Americans want that back.
Has anyone ever tried to figure out why those last two years were so bad? If so have you noticed that the Democrats controlled Congress during both of them and the House two year earlier than that? Is there a chance that too many of the troubles of that period had something to do with the Democrats being in control with Bush forced to be a lame duck. I got to wondering today about this and here is a good explanation.
Do I really need to go through yours, and others posts, where you blame the current economy on the President, but give the Republican controlled house a pass because "well they tried to pass something", although that something was bad, or worse, then doing nothing?
I find it funny to no end, that when a Republican is in the white house, then its all the Democratic congresses fault. Or that when a Democrat is in the white house, with a Republican controlled house (with the filibuster, yeah, they control the Senate), then its all the Presidents fault.
On a serious note, the economy has been compared to a large cruise ship. It takes time to change directions. By most of the data and comparissons I've seen, it takes about 4 years for a Presidents economic policies to hold up. So the first 4 years of the Clinton Presidency, were really George Bush I's numbers. From 1996-2004, it was essentially President Clintons numbers, and from 2004 through 2012, they are George W. Bush's numbers.
Now, don't tell the American voter that, they want results now. No problem with asking for that I guess, but when we are discussing macro economics, they don't change over night, and really take years before you notice a difference.
We spent to much money on things we didn't need, like our wars and tax cuts that should have expired when the extra federal income was exhausted, and decades of mismanagement by both parties on pork, and now we are going to start to have to pay the price.
But if the economy turned around next year, it would be more attributed to the Obama administration, not the Romney. And if Romney wins, and the economy slugs along for 4 years, and takes off in 2016-17, then it will be Romney's ecomplishment, not Obama's.
Thats just the sad, simple truth. Want to see how well a President did? Wait 4 years.
I don't expect you to remember it, but democrats regained control largely on the mess republicans had created. The great republican economic times lasted all but two years after a pathetic recovery out of 2001 recession. Engaged in two wars, "mission accomplished" banner, and an economy riding high pretty much entirely on "willingness" of financial institutions, and the politicians, to leverage at over 30:1 leading to easy credit. And of course, all five of them turned out to be a disaster.
But, I'm sure, patriotic, real Americans want that back.
The reason we went into Iraq was the Congress and the People of this country were sold a bill of goods by the Bush Administration. Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda, nor the 9/11 attacks. They didn't have WMDs, bio and chem weapons, because operation Desert Fox took them out. The so-called "evidence" that was presented to Congress was either intentionally misleading, or cherry-picked to get us into Iraq for some personal vendetta Junior had with Saddam.
If we had concentrated on Afghanistan, who actually DID have ties to al Qaeda, instead of turning most of our attention on Iraq, that war would have been over, and not dragged out to become the longest conflict we've been in since viet nam.
Then MAYBE you should read the comments congress made, as they PASSED the resolution to allow the use of military force in IRAQ.
9/11 was still fresh in peopls minds. Anyone who didn't do everything that the Bush administration wanted on foreign policy and military power were unpatriotic, and were attacked as being so.
So, like good dogs, they all fell in line because they wanted to be re-elected.
The Bush administration were the ones who ignored evidence that contradicted their vision for Iraq. Most of the congressmen didn't even know the full evidence, they simply followed the tide and believed the executive branch.
Now that is no excuse, but it all came down from the top.
1- 61% of the democrats in the house voted against invasion of Iraq, while less than 3% of republicans did (over 97% of them supported it).
2- The number for democrats was worse in the senate, with 42% of democrats opposing it, but the support was overwhelmingly republican, all but 1 republican senators voted for it.
3- While all in the congress (clearly) didn't buy it, many likely did buy the Bush administration idea (would be appropriate to call them assumptions now). But who had access to detailed intelligence? And many likely went with the flow from fear of being labeled unpatriotic. But that begs the question, why did nearly 99% of republican congressman support it, while only 7 (out of 270) voted against?
And yes, Iraq did have chemical weapons. Reagan knew it, including its use on civilians, and many likely had "Made in USA" imprinted on them. But did Iraq still have it? Well, there is no proof of that, is there?
The Dems didn't completely control the Senate. Al Franken was seated nearly eight months after winning his Senate seat. Even if the Senate was controlled by Democrats (e.g. 50 seats), the statement ignores two other facts. a) there were Democrats in the Senate that vote as if they were Republicans. b) Republicans liberally used the filibuster to block legislation.
The Dems never had 60 Senate seats post-2008. They had between 56 and 58 seats. For that very brief period they had 58 seats with consistent support from Bernie Sanders and inconsistent support from Joe Lieberman. The Democrats hardly had 60 Dem seats, and hardly 60 reliable Dem votes. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.
Thus to state that the Democrats "controlled both houses for two years," is false.
Follow your own advice and learn that Bush himself has said that HE made the decision to invade Iraq, Congress voted to fund the invasion, it DID NOT order it.
Learn the constitution.
The War Powers Resolution requires the president to provide written notification to Congress of the introduction of U.S. armed forces into hostilities within forty-eight hours of such action. The president must explain the reasons forces were inserted in a hostile situation, the executive's authority for doing so, and the scope and duration of the military action. In addition, the president is required to terminate the use of military forces after sixty days unless Congress has declared war.
So, while Bush can MAKE the decision to invade someone, without the approval of congress, (IE, per my statement,
Quote:
Then MAYBE you should read the comments congress made, as they PASSED the resolution to allow the use of military force in IRAQ.
the financial fail can be tied to the minimum wage increase foisted upon Bush by the Democrats in Congress.
This is the kind of stuff I love. Conservatives are constantly blathering about "victim mentality" while simultaenously always claiming to be victims of the democrats..........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
