Issue advocacy is not an electioneering communication. As long as they don’t say “vote for Pedro,” they’re legal. Obviously, it’s pretty easy to engineer issue advocay ads that don’t specifically endorse a candidate, but leave no doubt that they’re pushing a candidate.
Obama said he would cut capital gains on small business as soon as he took office. Then he said he would cut capital gains on small business at the beginning of his second term (presuming he gets one). Now he is going to cut capital gains on small business and also cut taxes on all large business. What I said was not wrong.
He also blamed the deficit on the previous administration, which deficit was caused in large part by the bailout and by increased spending to counter the recession. Now he wants more spending to counter the recession and also to spend some of the payback of the TARP program to be spent as well. So if he hates it so much, he sure isn’t doing anything about it.
This just reinforces my point - tax cuts and spending increases and No Child Left Behind programs are what the SDMB and liberals in general objected to about Bush’s economic policy. Now Obama is saying the same things, and it is a “shift to the left”.
Suuuuuure it is.
Regards,
Shodan
No, he just said he would cut capital gains on small businesses. he never gave a timeline.
he said the deficit and recession were there before he took office. He didn’t “blame” anybody (even though, it absolutley IS the fault of the prvious adminstration)
Actually, none of those things are really what people objected to about Bush (except NCLB, which was an abortion, but still one of the aset if the things that were wrong with Bush).
It was tax cuts on the rich, and out of control spending on illegal, bullshit wars that people objected to.
Aw, go easy on the little fellers, Dio. They just KNOW Obama wasn’t telling the truth, so they have to find *some *way to prove it.
THe poster specified that he was referring to the *economic *policies of George Bush that people objected to, not the ones in general.
But Obama doesn’t have the same economic policies as Bush.
Right, and who bailed the banks out? You know, back in 2008 when the financial system went into meltdown?
Obama did increase spending to counter the recession, a recession caused by the previous administration. And we will need to spend more to counteract this recession.
The Democratically controlled Congress, of which Obama was a member.
Congress can sign legislation into law all by itself? I don’t remember a veto.
I do remember that Bush’s original plan was to just hand over a giant check with absolutely no supervision, controls or consequences. Congress reigned that it.
You’re missing the point anyway. The point is not whether Obama was involved in the bailout, the point is that it’s disingenuous to act like it was his idea or that the Republicans weren’t heavily involved with it.
McCain voted for it, Bush signed it, Palin supported it. So the criticism of Obama is what, exactly?
Yeah, after the GOP deregulated us back to 1928, created a gigantic asset bubble, let banks lever up three and four times higher than ever before and watched the whole thing melt down they then grandstanded against a bailout they’d made necessary. The party of personal responsibility.
This one had a veto-proof majority, so yes they could.
I was just answer a question with a factual answer. A question which implied it was all done by Bush. Sure, he played a key role, but the point is they all have their hands in it. Still, Congress is the source of legislation. And in this case, they had plenty of votes.
1928?
Yes, 1928. Actually there was more regulation in 1928 than there was in 2008 as far as bank debt:asset ratios go.
The Democrats had 2/3 of both houses? What?
They were doing the bidding of Bush, and the point that everyone was involved is a point the REPUBLICANS seem to want to forget, not Obama.
And since the Democrats never had control of the government since 1928, they just couldn’t reverse any of that, could they? No siree! They couldn’t have passed anything like the Glass-Steagall Act even if they wanted to.
And of course the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which got rid of most of that (non-existent) bill was fiercely opposed by Democrats (84% of Senate Dems voted “yes”).
You can try to blame this stuff on Republicans, but both parties are guilty.
You said “Congress”. Congress consists of more than just Democrats.
And actually it didn’t get quite 2/3 votes in the House-- I had only checked the Senate, where it got more than 2/3. But guess what? The “yes” votes in the House were 172 Dems and 91 Republicans.
This wasn’t just Bush. It was heavily supported by Congressional Democrats.
Well, in that case, Congress always has a 100% majority in both houses. WTF are you on about?
No one said it was just Bush. The point is that it’s disingenuous to try make the bailout synonomous with Obama. He was a bit player in it. Bush was still running the show then.
By the way, the bailout was necessary. It wasn’t a mistake. It was biting into a shit sandwich, but the alternative was killing a pile of puppies, babies and nuns.
I haven’t noticed that facts make much difference to you, but the above is factually incorrect, as has already been cited. His first timeline was ‘as soon as he took office’, which was a year ago, the second was 2014, which is still in the future. He didn’t give a timeline on this latest, because he isn’t going to do that any more than he can freeze spending on 26% of the federal budget. He is in Full Bullshit Mode.
Then the resulting deficit was necessary as well, and honest liberals will stop condemning Bush for the deficit that Obama inherited. It was necessary. It wasn’t a mistake.
Right?
Regards,
Shodan
Keep track of your own posts before you blame other people. You said:
Yes, Congress can sign legislation into law by itself.
Oh, please. **DD **wouldn’t have asked the question otherwise:
Are you on crack? You’re attempting to claim that the sole contributor forming the deficit was the bailout?
The bailout, IMHO, was necessary and it wasn’t a mistake. Does that absolve the Bush administration from passing on a $1.3T deficit to the Obama administration? Not at all – clearly, there were additional contributors (wars, tax cuts, etc., etc.).
But then, you knew that, didn’t you.