Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Post-election posturing (135 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I know you aren't implying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    that because Reid and Pelosi were the majority leaders in the House and Senate starting in January of 2007, the economy took a nosedive?

    “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

    by skohayes on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 05:42:03 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not at all. But...we keep seeing Bush get all (0+ / 0-)

      the 'credit' for the economy, even thought Democrats held a lot of the power for the first two and last two years of his administration -- and for the 8 years prior. It was, after all President Clinton who signed the repeal of

      Might as well issue a reminder.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 06:23:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, two wars on Chinese credit card (0+ / 0-)

        as well as a budget surplus expected to last ten years killed in one fell swoop of tax cuts, as well as unfunded mandates like NCLB and Medicare Part D might have something to do with that, don't you think?
        And I assume you're referring to Clinton repealing Glass Steagal, except that allowing banks to underwrite mortgage securities, sell insurance and real estate had started under the Reagan administration, way back in 1987.

        On October 13, 1999, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department agreed that direct subsidiaries of national banks (“financial subsidiaries”) could conduct securities activities, but that bank holding companies would need to engage in merchant banking, insurance, and real estate development activities through holding company, not bank, subsidiaries.[239] On October 22, 1999, Senator Gramm and the Clinton Administration agreed a bank holding company could only become a “financial holding company” (and thereby enjoy the new authority to affiliate with insurance and securities firms) if all its bank subsidiaries had at least a “satisfactory” CRA rating.[240]

        After these compromises, a joint Senate and House Conference Committee reported out a final version of S. 900 that was passed on November 4, 1999, by the House in a vote of 362-57 and by the Senate in a vote of 90-8. President Clinton signed the bill into law on November 12, 1999, as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 (GLBA).[241]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:05:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The federal government can issue an infinite (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens

          of money, however much we need to mediate exchange and trade with figments of the imagination that are certified as authentic. Think of the issuance of official IOUs as comparable to issuing marriage certificates. A marriage is no less a real commitment without a certificate, but public and official recognition is worth something. Ditto for dollars. They are certificates of obligation. Nothing more. We could each issue our own IOUs, but strangers would be reluctant to credit them. Official certificates of value work better.
          Why we let banksters play middleman and decide who gets to use them and who doesn't is another question. Of course, once upon a time, we also let the written word, another figment of the imagination, be restricted to use by scribes.
          Humans are inventive and restrictive. I suspect these characteristics are usually not found in the same individual.

          We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

          by hannah on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:24:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Without question -- but (0+ / 0-)

          Bush did not come into a Republican Congress, and Democrats played along.  That was the root of the whole "I was against it before I was for it" or however that went in the 2004 campaign.

          Which brings up a point:

          I've seen John Kerry's name floated as a potential Secy of State, but he was one of the Senators who voted for the Iraq war.

          His position will have to be that he agreed to go to war or that the war wasn't important enough to warrant due diligence on his part, leading to his being duped by the not-very-formidable  Bush.  Either way, Kerry is an intellectual lightweight on a par with Bush.  I hope those stories are just noise.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:32:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Clinton brought down the final wall (0+ / 0-)

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:38:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think he's implying (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, Laconic Lib

      That the razor thin majority (if you count Lieberman) that the Democrats had should have allowed them to steamroll all opposition and overcome every obstruction in implementing their agenda.

      The conservative line is that we had a super-majority but squandered that power and thus failed. Almost as if we didn't need their cooperation. (May it become so in two years.)

      •  I don't know -- You guys are hot for filibuster (0+ / 0-)

        reform because you can't do what you want with a majority.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:39:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site