US Government Federalizes AIG Bailout $85 Billion!

[shygye]

The dems are in charge of congress but that fact doesn't correlate with Dem dogma that claims its the Republicans who are in charge and in the pocket of that "evil" corporate america. So there is only one thing to do if you are a Dem: ignore the fact that dems control congress.

 

...

 

You conveniently forget that the Republicans had control of Congress for 10 years and that the Democrats only have a razor thin majority in the Senate. This means the Democrats can not override a veto.

 

You also neglected to say that Bush never vetoed a bill until the Republicans lost Congress.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Where does mongon get his information?

 

The Senate:

 

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

 

 

107th Congress (2001-2003)

Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)

 

Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats)

 

Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

 

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

 

108th Congress (2003-2005)

Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

 

109th Congress (2005-2007)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)

 

110th Congress (2007-2009)

Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

 

 

House of Representaives

 

106th Congress (1999-2001) 211 Democrats 223 Republicans

107th Congress (2001-2003) 212 Democrats 221 Republicans

108th Congress (2003-2005) 204 Democrats 229 Republicans

109th Congress (2005-2007) 202 Democrats 232 Republicans

110th Congress (2007-?) 233 Democrats 202 Republicans

 

I would say the Republicans have been basically in control for the last 8 years.

 

Source for USA Senate data

 

Source for USA House of Representative data

[Hugh_Hoy]

You also neglected to say that Bush never vetoed a bill until the Republicans lost Congress.

 

So, how many times has W used the veto up to this point in two terms? As of May 2007 he had only used it twice. So, since then, how many times has he used the veto power? Keep in mind that Clinton, while working with a Repulican congress, used it 78 times in his two terms.

 

HH

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

Bill Clinton vetoed 37 bills.

GWB vetoed 12 bills.

 

Source for information.

[mongon]

Mongon, Democrats were the majority in Congress during the '80s. Do they get credit for the '80s or does Reagan?

 

That question covers alot of ground. I would say if democrats voted for a bill they should get credit for it (or a demerit as the case may be).

[mongon]

You conveniently forget that the Republicans had control of Congress for 10 years and that the Democrats only have a razor thin majority in the Senate. This means the Democrats can not override a veto.

 

I didn't forget. The time frame i mentioned was 2007-8. The facts I pointed out about that time frame are correct. Also, the Dems can and have overriden a couple of Bush's vetoes because there are a number of Rs in the senate and House who vote with the Dems. 98% of the bills passed by Congress in the 110th are not vetoed. The trick that the Dems learned is to attach the ugly bills that George doesn't like to the bills that George considers a priority. That way all of the Dem bills circumvent the vetoe.

 

A good example: Bush was desperate to get the Fannie Freddie bailout bill, so the Dems gave it to him but included an additional $300billion in FHA loan guarantees to bailout homeowners and banks who are dealing with difficult (mostly subprime) mortgages. The Dems also included a provision that will siphon off hundreds of millions from Fannie and Freddie for "affordable housing." This was a low point in Dem fiscal management for obvious reasons considering that Fannie and Freddie were failing, but certain special interests got those handouts and that was what mattered. Its taxpayers that are guaranteeing these new mortgages and therefore its OK. :onfire:

 

Bush did not veto the bloated bill but certainly would have vetoed those provisions if they were stand alone bills. So the razor thin majority problem has been overcome by the dems. I'm sure the Rs did the same thing to Clinton so its business as usual.

 

You also neglected to say that Bush never vetoed a bill until the Republicans lost Congress.

 

And the result was an exponential expansion of government that threatens the stability of the U.S. You will see it all over again except worse if Obama gets in. Why? Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid like big government programs and see them as a way to solve problems. Obama is similar. I don't think this is debatable. They are all liberal democrats and will tell you so if you ask. OK Obama may not admit it since he is trying to get elected prez but he can't escape his very short and liberal legislative record.

[mongon]

I would say the Republicans have been basically in control for the last 8 years.

 

Your own stats show the Dems in control for the last two years. And they are raking in the dough from corporate america, trial lawyers, AIPAC (that is the Isral/jewish lobby), insurance, banks, codepink (ha ha), you name it the money is flowing to your beloved Dems. I know its hard to swallow, but there is no change with Dems in charge, except increased spending.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Mongon, Democrats were the majority in Congress during the '80s. Do they get credit for the '80s or does Reagan?

 

That question covers alot of ground. I would say if democrats voted for a bill they should get credit for it (or a demerit as the case may be).

 

Otherwords, Reaganomics was really a Democrat thing, right?

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

[mongon]

Interesting note is Alaska is producing 40% less now then 10 years ago. Coincidence?

 

The USA is producing 50% less oil then it did in 1970. Coincidence?

 

Why are 4 oil USA oil refineries not operating?

 

Why are the USA oil refineries not operating at their max?

 

Could it be that some have found out it is easier to make money by doing less work?

 

These are good questions. You are implying that the oil companies are behind the decline in production. Its possible. But it would be unusual for competitors to not go get the oil in the ground if they could sell it on the open market at a profit; and it would be unwise to leave it in the ground if there are oil companies / countries in the middle east who will make up the shortfall and take all the profits.

 

An alternative explanation is that George Bush 41 and the US congress in the 80s both imposed seperate and overlapping drilling moratoriums that halted the search for oil. As to those leased areas not under the moratorium, environmental groups would file lawsuits and litigate relentlessly the issue of whether the proposed drilling would violate state or federal environmental laws. So any lease holder would be delayed for years before exploration and drilling could begin. The same environmental litigation would occur to any proposed refinery complexes.

 

For years oil was cheap so in many cases the costs and efforts of purchasing leases, litigating environmental issues for years, conducting exploration (which is very costly though its gotten cheaper with new technologies), ordering drilling rigs to be manufactured once oil was found and getting the rigs to the location; all of those costs were formiddable and so alot of exploration was probably not undertaken.

 

The Dems in the House just passed a "drilling" bill but did not lift the moratorium for those areas that are known to have oil such as the Gulf and ANWR and did not do anything to terminate the lawsuits; and eliminated the tax credits oil companies get to offset their exploration costs. Basically its a sham drilling bill but you will soon hear your favorite Dems talking about how they are pro drilling.

 

Why do they refuse to allow drilling? Because their environmentalist group supporters don't want drilling and they have a seat at the table with Nancy pelosoi and the Dems. Special interests override common sense so we will remain dependent on saudi arabia.

[Bangkoktraveler]

As I have said before, why work harder when you can wore less and make more.

 

In the last 10 years, Alaska has been producing 40% less oil. If more wells are drilled, will that increase the amount of oil produced? Think about it.

 

Why is OPEC oil, Mexican oil, USA oil all selling for about the same price per barrel? Why is that?