"The bills comprising the act were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote with bipartisan support in the House of Representatives[2]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [3]"
Blame the Democrats that wer there if you will. Plenty of blame to go around. Timing is everything.
"One of the most notable recent elections was that of 1999. Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was widely blamed for the poor showing of the Republican Party during the general elections of 1998, declined to seek another term as Speaker and announced his resignation from the House. His expected successor was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Bob Livingston, who received the nomination of the Republican conference without opposition. However, Livingston—who had been publicly critical of President Bill Clinton's perjury during his sexual harassment trial—abruptly resigned from the House after it was revealed that he had been engaged in an extramarital affair. As a result the chief deputy, Dennis Hastert, was chosen to serve as Speaker."
I guess Clinton was...uh...distracted. I'm guessing the citizenry was too.
Yeah, I hate that I missed it. Nothing I'd have liked more than to sit with Hollywood and listen to the dulcet (if a bit long in the tooth/vocal cords) tones of Ms. Streisand.
That pesky working long hours so I can afford to raise my family/pay my mortgage/voluntarily donate to various charities/save for my dotage just get in the way.
If only I'd let the Democrats/Socialist-lites take care of me.
Which is my point as to Gramm/McCain linkage you tried. It would be really difficult to logically tar McCain with this without splattering (pun intended) the Democrats, hence a non-starter for a 'gotcha.'
Which is my point as to Gramm/McCain linkage you tried. It would be really difficult to logically tar McCain with this without splattering (pun intended) the Democrats, hence a non-starter for a 'gotcha.'
I'm not sure you really get it yet, Brick. I have no personal dislike for McCain. I don't like the party he represents. The truth be told, I don't think he likes it either -- at least not in its current form. He's just willing to compromise virtually everything he has stood for (that earned his "maverick" reputation) in order to get elected. It's a sticky wicket that all politicians find themselves in -- they have to get elected to implement what they really believe. And even that will be tempered by the checks and balances of our system.
The fundamental issues that are taking shape in this campaign are all losers for the Republican Party as it now stands. The biggest of which is the Economy. And John McCain is solidly on the wrong side of that -- pre-maverick, post-maverick and re-maverick.
Regulation vs. Deregulation = Republicans lose
You can shout Socialism/Marxism all you want. The biggest socialists out there right now reside on Wall Street. And they don't care what you call them as long as the American taxpayers bail them out.
What I spouted above wasn't Marxist/Socialist ideology. It was straight economics and would be supported by capitalists as much as socialists - it is about increasing the ability of the population to buy services. At a certain poverty or wealth spending doesn't occur and the economy therefore shrinks.
The only reason excessive wealth (and therefore power) concentrations are encouraged by politicians is that it is usually those politicians who have the wealth - be they socialist or capitalist. And before you say that this is a good reason for minimal government, any concentrations of wealth, be they state or otherwise, give rise to this condition so simply having weak government doesn't help (and is very much why we are in the pickle we are currently in).
Again, this is not Marxist (although Marx was certainly at pains to point this out), it is the reality of our social interactions and the environment in which the economy exists. The market is not inate. It exists within a human ceated context. Therefore it is entirely right that is should be regulated and ameliorative social spending should exist.
GTF
Quote:
The biggest socialists out there right now reside on Wall Street.
Location: FR | IC luftballons | Page 20 - photo thread: there be PPRuNe's most beautiful woman...
Posts: 297
Good grief?! It must be at least 4 hours since we've had any intervention here from brick & co...?! It reminds me of that part of the movie in 'Battle of Britain' when after a very hard night, the threat boards remain unusually empty. At this stage, everyone ignores that GB (Great Britain - not George Bush...) has just won the air war. That Hitler has decided to transfer his best assets to the Eastern front. And all the Luftwaffe pilots that never quite measured up have been summarily transferred to the Wermacht.
Did I speak too soon...?! Ooops, I forgot where I was. In the midst of what might be the worst financial crisis to hit the USA (and the world) during the last 30 years, what do the 2 future Presidential candidates have to say on the subject? Palin "You know I'm completely ignorant when it comes to these things John. I'm going out to shoot me a moose. You want I FedEx you a bit of rump or what?!"
The Republicans -- who think that government is the problem -- have been busy destroying the Government for 27 years. For better or worse, that same Government is now running the housing market.
You have got to be kidding. How about a guy named Obama working as a 'community organizer' for ACORN coaching people, who can't by any reasonable measure qualify for a home loan, how to lie on applications to get Govt backing for one? In case it missed your study, that's what are known as 'sub-prime' loans in one vernacular and 'criminal fraud' in another.
How about a guy named Biden who thinks "everyone deserves a chance at home ownership" and implies the Government should provide it despite the fact that some people can't afford a home no matter how hard the Govt twists the arms of mortgage companies to make it so?
Can list plenty more Obama/Dem - Primary sub prime connections.
Amazing.
We can spend pages discussing ACORN/Obama. Busted how many times for voter fraud now?
Quote:
"We oppose laws that require identification in order to vote or register to vote."
After a few days in country with Morning Joe, Wolf Blitzer, Glenn Beck and whatever the folks on Fox and MSNBC are called, I am once again saturated with the latest on the election front.
Rather than rehashing who caused what and accusations of being a flaming marxist/paleolithic neo-con, would the gentlemen care to enlighten me as to which candidate they think has the best plan for dragging the USA away from the brink on which it appears to totter?
And why they think such a plan is workable and likely to do the job?
Glorious place is Texas, grand old wx in DFW and folks friendly as can be. Sure hope the after effects of Ike will get cleared up soon.
And in times gone by, a ready supply of cannon fodder,could perhaps be added.
Ah, this old saw again. Almost up there with the US being 'late' to WWIs and II. None of them are true, but it makes for good pseudo-intellectualism.
As a personal aside, that 'cannon fodder' angle gave me my start. Farm boy from very lower middle class to, probably, upper middle class.
Funny how in exchange for work/service, Uncle Sam traded me an education (not to mention some very cool life experiences along the way). But let's not mention that; let's just stick to the 'cannon fodder' for the masses thing. It's so much more fun be condescending. Amazing what hard work and an education can lead to.
Almost socialist in a way. But then that potential for getting shot at part of the bargain detracts from the ideal, in my mind anyway.
I don't know who will win the election. I hope it's not Obama. I wish it were Reagan II but as it is McCain running, he'll have to do.
I take humorous pleasure at seeing the Democrats take a sure thing and turn it into the close race it is now.
Can list plenty more Obama/Dem - Primary sub prime connections.
Ahhh, they have found their footing once again. It wasn't the greedy trying to get rich off the poor, it was the poor trying to get out of poverty. They were the one manipulating the market.
Never mind that it has absolutely nothing to do with my original point.
Keeping in mind that Ronnie Raygun is Shrub's hero (McSame's too) -- you'd better hope one (if not both) of them are wrong. Because if government isn't "the solution" to this problem, all hope is lost. There's nothing left between us and the abyss of another Depression.
Now here's the thought that ought to really scare you. What happens if the Bush Administration isn't any better at managing this crisis than they have been at managing any other ?
That's not orginal thought by the way. I'm an ex-air traffic controller -- not an economist. I listen to the experts. But I know what the Bush Administration has done to ATC. I saw it first hand. And I have every reason to believe they did the same thing to every other branch/agency/department of the U.S. Government -- FEMA, CDC, Justice, EPA, MMS, FAA ad nauseum.
Sleep tight America. Don't forget to pull the covers up over your head so the scary, young, (half) black man with the funny name doesn't get you. Remember, he's only trying to con you into thinking he cares about you. It was just a brillant ploy -- going from Harvard to the poor neighborhoods of Chicago. All respectable people with good intentions would have gone straight to Wall Street and stayed there -- keeping truth, justice and the American way safe for all.
Rather than rehashing who caused what and accusations of being a flaming marxist/paleolithic neo-con, would the gentlemen care to enlighten me as to which candidate they think has the best plan for dragging the USA away from the brink on which it appears to totter?
And why they think such a plan is workable and likely to do the job?
I'm not sure that's possible Judd and (going out on a limb here) I'm not sure it's even wise. George Bush (for better or worse) is the President right now and gets to call the shots. The waters are somewhat murky in that both McCain and Obama -- as active Senators -- can and should act in their respective roles as such.
Having said that, I believe the root cause of this current crisis is clear -- as are the respective positions of the candidates. A lack of regulation has allowed these financial monsters to be created without much oversight. McCain has consistently called for deregulation and Obama for regulation.
GTF, you seem to like talking, particularly about things you weren't asked.
Let me be more to the point.
Explain what Obama did as a 'community organizer' while EMPLOYED by ACORN. An organisation that has been convicted multiple times for voter fraud as well as being slapped for chronic fraudulent mortgage applications.
I'll help a bit more. You can explain his campaigns recent monetary contributions to ACORN (note the direction of money flow), then maybe seque into their numerous recent indictments and convictions for voter fraud.
Go ahead and make childish fun of other political names again. Every vote counts.
Last edited by StbdD : 18th September 2008 at 14:37.
I am under 45 years old, I love the outdoors, I hunt and fish, I am a Republican reformer.
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment, I have several children, am the Vice Presidential nominee, with less than two years in the Governor's office.
I take humorous pleasure at seeing the Democrats take a sure thing and turn it into the close race it is now.
I don't think there can be a political sure thing in the US. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect the majority of Republican voters are so ideologically for Republicin virtues (frigid to cold on abortion, utterly pro-gun, against any tax increase, against any wealth redistribution or increase in social expenditure, God. etc) that no matter how bad the economy gets, how many wars you are fighting, how poor the international perception of the US is and no matter how attacked the US is, they will simply vote Republican. The alternative is to vote in a party that is perceived to be Marxist/Communist/Left-wing/pinko and anything is better than that.
As 1/3 to a half of the voting population falls in to this category I guess the undecideds who will win the election make up just a few percent. If they are the ones being relied upon to swing an election, then no matter what state the US is in, Republican's are guaranteed to get within a hairs bredth of winning.
While it might not be possible to directly answer Juud's question given that either candidate will have their hands tied and are unlikely to ever be able to change much, I wouldn't underestimate the power of either to mobilise their electorates. As they both appeal to quite different demographics this could have a profound influence.
Post 9/11 it has been pointed out many times how alternatives to the neo-con vision were not heard much in the US. But the opponents to this system existed. They were just shut down. Now they are in a position where they can open up again and are increasingly doing so. With a President who represents them after 8 years I expect there will be a substantial and vocal grass roots empowerment in the US if Obama is successful.
The most obvious case for what Obama can do to drag the US out of its hole which any Republican candidate won't, is in the sphere of international relations. The US position of influence in the world could be restored almost overnight with someone like Obama/Biden. McCain, while seeming a hell of a lot more decent than Bush, is lacking in this area and his VP even more so. Whether the US wants to be isolated or not, a Republican president will increase the sidelining of the US. A Democrat govenment will almost certainly garner more support. Of course the USA could happily keep ignoring international opinion, but the string that connects the US to Western opinion is close to breaking point.
Unlike the Republican party, the Democrats I suspect would take a far more constructive attitude to the UN (what could be worse than placing someone like Bolton as your representitive?!). In doing so the power of the US would likewise be increased.
The most obvious case for what Obama can do to drag the US out of its hole which any Republican candidate won't, is in the sphere of international relations.
Linear Mode
