Go back
Why did most Republicans oppose the $7-800 bail...

Why did most Republicans oppose the $7-800 bail...

Debates

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

....and why did most Democrats accept it?

I thought that Bush was a Republican. What's going on here?

My theory is this:

Republicans know they are dead in the water come the election. By voting this down, they hoped to screw the economy completely (so far so good!) for the democrats, so they would only last one term.

Democrats know they are shoe-ins at the next election. they wanted to shore up the economy for their reign. Also, if the money is wasted, and does not prevent the economy from going into freefall (as is surely going to be the case), then they can blame Bush for the waste of taxpayers money.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

The problem is that Bush is a very liberal Republican. He loves to spend money and grow government. Conservatives would rather shrink the size of the goverment and have the government spend less money.

Anyone who believes the GW is a conservative has been duped.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by howardgee
....and why did most Democrats accept it?

I thought that Bush was a Republican. What's going on here?

My theory is this:

Republicans know they are dead in the water come the election. By voting this down, they hoped to screw the economy completely (so far so good!) for the democrats, so they would only last one term.

Democrats know they are ...[text shortened]... (as is surely going to be the case), then they can blame Bush for the waste of taxpayers money.
Actually, 90 democrats voted against the first bill. If the democrats just wanted the bill, they could have all voted for it last week and it would have passed by a large margin.

Clock
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
The problem is that Bush is a very liberal Republican. He loves to spend money and grow government. Conservatives would rather shrink the size of the goverment and have the government spend less money.

Anyone who believes the GW is a conservative has been duped.
The problem is that he spends tax payers' money on the rich corporations.

He is liberal only in the sense that he liberally robs the poor to give to the rich.
He is a modern day Robbing Hood.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

No, I'd say that GW is liberal across the board. He has a way of spending money on all sorts of programs and growing the government.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
No, I'd say that GW is liberal across the board. He has a way of spending money on all sorts of programs and growing the government.
Care to give any examples?

Clock
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

According to the link below, GW increased spending on education and labor by 65-70%, increased spending on Farm Subsidies and as well as historical increase in Medicare.



http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by howardgee
....and why did most Democrats accept it?

I thought that Bush was a Republican. What's going on here?

My theory is this:

Republicans know they are dead in the water come the election. By voting this down, they hoped to screw the economy completely (so far so good!) for the democrats, so they would only last one term.

Democrats know they are ...[text shortened]... (as is surely going to be the case), then they can blame Bush for the waste of taxpayers money.
What you saw was the public reaction to the idea of "bailing out" wall street. The politicians, being politicians, responded to the negative outcry for going along with the whole mess. Then after they voted down the bill the stock market took an 800 point drop towards an abyss of sorts and the public outcry seemed to soften a bit. Then the plan was talked up some more as they convinced more and more people that it was "needed" so they were then able to pass the plan without such a negative outcry as would have occurred the first time around.

In short, the plan was going to pass no matter what. What you saw the first time it failed was the beginning of a PR job for the average Joe to make him see things their way.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
According to the link below, GW increased spending on education and labor by 65-70%, increased spending on Farm Subsidies and as well as historical increase in Medicare.



http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184
Ah, yes the CATO organisation...funded by Exxon-Mobil, AIG and Philip Morris.
I would take anything they say with a pinch of salt.

More reliable are the numerous sources accurately reporting the BLOCKING of Education, Health and Labour spending by your retard cowboy himself:

"...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was quick to condemn the veto.

“The President again vetoed a bipartisan and fiscally responsible bill that addresses the priorities of the American people: education for our children, assistance in paying skyrocketing energy costs, veterans’ health care, and other urgent health research on cancer and other serious medical problems,” she said.

The president did sign the Department of Defense (DoD) funding measure, even though he objected to some of the items that were included in the bill...."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-vetoes-labor-hhs-spending-bill-2007-11-13.html

See how he signs the funding giving money to the arms companies, but vetoes the one to help the poor?

More links here...go educate yourself, Eladar:

"...Intensifying his battle with Congress over federal spending, President Bush on Tuesday vetoed an appropriations bill for the first time, rejecting $150.7 billion in spending for school aid, healthcare and other domestic programs.

But as he complained about the cost of that bill, which would have increased spending on these programs by 4.3% over last year, Bush signed a $471-billion defense appropriations bill that pushed up military spending by more than 9.5%.

And he urged Congress to quickly appropriate $196 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...."

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/14/nation/na-budget14

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Did he sign those bills or did he not? The only way the spending increased could have occurred would be with a super majority to over ride the veto. Any such super majorities?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
Did he sign those bills or did he not? The only way the spending increased could have occurred would be with a super majority to over ride the veto. Any such super majorities?
Can you actually read? Go look up the word "veto".

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Bills were passed. Otherwise the spending would not have happened. Were they passed by a super majority? Perhaps one bill was vetoed, but another was passed. That's how things work.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
Bills were passed. Otherwise the spending would not have happened. Were they passed by a super majority? Perhaps one bill was vetoed, but another was passed. That's how things work.
Well done, Eladar...you got there in the end.

So given your newly found knowledge that Bush passed the defence bill, but vetoed the Health, education and labour spending, are you prepared to admit your mistake in calling Shrub a liberal president?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by howardgee
....and why did most Democrats accept it?

I thought that Bush was a Republican. What's going on here?

My theory is this:

Republicans know they are dead in the water come the election. By voting this down, they hoped to screw the economy completely (so far so good!) for the democrats, so they would only last one term.

Democrats know they are ...[text shortened]... (as is surely going to be the case), then they can blame Bush for the waste of taxpayers money.
I think it's all go to do with irony.
The republicans nationalizing banks is obviously to capitalism what George Bush is to intelligence or Adolph Hitler was to equal rights.

Clock
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by shavixmir
I think it's all go to do with irony.
The republicans nationalizing banks is obviously to capitalism what George Bush is to intelligence or Adolph Hitler was to equal rights.
It's state capitalism versus private capitalism. Still capitalism. Louis IV was a famous exponent of state capitalism. Of course, he was the state ... Le roi, c'est moi.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.