Sure Seems Like Bush Blames Congress Alot

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bobber205, Sep 24, 2008.

  1. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #1
    Everytime Bush on TV at a press conference, it seems like he always says the same thing "Come on Congress!!!!!111 I Am tired of waiting on you. You sucks. Please hurry up with I want you to do".

    Doesn't he veto a large number of bills? Does he not know that the government works slower than any of us would like? :D
     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #2
    He does this to try to rush congress into what HE wants. This time we are actually paying attention to him trying to screw us over.

    And here i had thought we had forgot about our monkey in office:p
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    Just read the speech. Someone needs to put a stop to this, and quick! We can't give him a blank check. If this is done, it needs to come with stiff penalties for those who got us into this in the first place. And we need a better plan for repayment of this money than it'll be repaid in "better times". What a joke this man is.
     
  4. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #4
    But he's joining McCain in taking Obama's lines: "21st century solutions."

    I wonder if there will be a run on the banks after he talked about panic, collapse, etc., and didn't say until the end that "your deposits are safe."
     
  5. benlee macrumors 65816

    benlee

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    #5
    Don't mean to be "that guy" but the correct spelling is "blames" not "blaims"

    In response to your post, politics is a huge blaming game. It's not just Bush. But rule and policy promulgation is SLOW!
     
  6. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #6
    I was wondering if this was another one of those political terms I should just know like "Bush Doctrine." :p

    Seriously, I think this is an aspect of Bush that should not be surprising. He comes from a business background where large deals are made fairly haphazardly on instinct. Of course he's impatient at what he probably sees as little more than bean counting. It's hard for him to understand why anyone would want to think these things through or to what extent something like the bailout is probably going to be the biggest legacy of his Presidency.

    That's exactly why the President should not be allowed to do things in isolation.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Let's just hope the country doesn't end up like Bush's oil businesses:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush073099.htm
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Of course! And lots of them helped him get elected too.
     
  10. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #10
    makes me wonder wat will happen this time around...
     
  11. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #11
    Gaaah! $9 a barrel. I just couldn't read any more after that. :eek:
     
  12. TSE macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    #12
    A little off topic, but honestly, both the Republicans and Democrats failed big time since about 2003ish. I hate the people that blame all the world's problems on Bush or Republicans or just the congress or just the Democrats. It was everybody's fault and both the Congress and President have made their fair share of bad moves.
     
  13. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
  14. bobber205 thread starter macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #14
    What are you talking about? ;)
     
  15. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #15
    Well, it's the executive branch who runs the department of defense, NSA, CIA, that helped with the lie about the war, and have implemented it.

    The executive branch also runs the Treasury Dept. and appointed the Chairman of the Fed. Reserve, etc.

    So I do think that both of these crises have more to do with the executive branch. There are laws that should have been passed, and Congress shouldn't have gone along with Bush, but much more of the responsibility DOES fall with Bush.

    But it looks like it's the DEMOCRATS that are going to give him most the votes he needs on the bailout. I'm a little confused.
     
  16. squeeks macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #16
    lol

    the problem started with all of these congressmen, both repubs and dems, that have been there for 20-30+ years and haven't done anything
     
  17. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #17
    and there you have any we need term limits on congress men.

    The president is gone in at MOST 10 years per one of the amendments most of the time a max of 8 year and a vast majority are only in office 4 years. Lets face it in government 10 years is not that long of time to get things done.
    But congressmen and senintor are there for 20+ years they have a long time to get things done and most rather keep the status quo.

    Of course the smart idea of term limits on congress will never pass because the people there want to keep the power. Hell that all they want is power. Let me tell you Congressmen who have not been really in the districe they represent in over 10 years are REALLY in touch with the people let me tell you...

    The president (who ever it might be and that includes Bush) is more than likely more in touch with the "people" than a lot of our congressmen
     
  18. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #18
    I think real campaign finance reform, and other election reforms would be better. Take away the financial advantage to the incumbent, and make it easier for local less well-known candidates, then it's more likely to be about issues, and about performance. If the faces change with the same system, I don't think much would change.
     
  19. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #19
    That is one of the problems with the term limits/throw the bums out mentality. People often give low marks to "Congress", yet score their individual representatives much higher.

    The other problem with term limits is that it creates a power vacuum. Having representatives who are less knowledgeable about the workings of Washington shifts power to bureaucrats and lobbyists.
     
  20. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #20
    What I really dislike is every time Bush comes under attack, Bushies quickly come to his aid by blaming, or trying to the democratic congress, or (at least) try to give them equal blame. Soon the thread turns into an us vs. them argument. Bush and his party own this There are a number of Bush rubberstamps among democrats, no question about it. However, they are not involved with planning, or policy. I am a member of ActBlue. We are working as hard to defeat these pseudo-democrats, as we are the republicans. I have donated to numerous campaigns all across the country. It gives these small campaigns enough capital to compete effectively.

    Wall Street analysts have been predicting economic collapse for a few years now. I remember one presentation which really rocked me. I forget who the economist was, but he said, (not exact quote) "We have a 'perfect storm' forming. On one hand, we have unchecked oil prices, which will soon be felt at $3.00/Gallon, at the pump. On the other hand, and what few are talking about, our financial institutions will soon be in very serious trouble". He went on to explain the mortgage problem and what will happen if housing prices stay flat, or drop further. He warned the far too many large, well-known banks, investment houses and insurance companies, were holding billions in under-secured sub-prime paper. He explained the fed would try to head off inflation, caused by fuel costs, by a series of drops in the PLR. But, that would hinder the banking industry from trying to off-set their losses by raising their profit margins in other areas.

    The perfect storm.
     
  21. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #21
    Victims of what? Their own startling incompetence? A victim is drug along kicking and screaming, not offering to drive the getaway car.
     
  22. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #22
    And it's not just the Wall Street analysts. There have been people from many different areas for years pointing to the different problems that caused this crisis:
    Community groups talking about predatory lending practices with subprime loans, and the drastic increase in interest rate (since 2001 or before);
    Warren Buffet talking about the mortgage-related derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction" (2003);
    Housing experts and economists talking about the bubble and it's going to burst (since 2005 or before);

    Gramm's deregulation of 1999 enabled this crisis, but the Treasury department and administration officials did not recognize it, and had the ability to curb in a lot of the problems, in addition to the interest rate issue. And the Iraq war added to it both because of the cost of the war, but also the impact on the price of oil.

    Treasury officials talked about derivatives being some great part of the future. Paulson talked about LESS regulation until March 2008, when he realized more was needed. He used the same "fundamentals are strong" idea. He (or an assistant secretary) said in July that the economy would start to recover by the end of the year (without apparently the need for some sort of bailout), but by the middle of August, he was already beginning to plan this bailout "last case scenario." That's insane. At least McCain admitted (before he denied) that he knows nothing about the economy, but this guy is the Secretary of the Treasury -- within a month we go from recovery will begin in five months to hatching a trillion dollar bailout plan?

    Democrats have tried to pass legislation about predatory lending and the Republicans fought it. That would have helped a lot with the situation, and other than complete re-regulation that the Republicans would NEVER have gone for, and Bush NEVER would have signed, there really was nothing they could do. I think a lot of the Democrats are whimps, some are incompetent, and some are pseudo-Democrats, but this has definitely been an issue for the Executive Branch.

    And I've said it before -- if Paulson started preparing for this scenario over a month ago, why did he wait until there was such a crisis, and turn over a 2 1/2 page proposal? There's no excuse.
     
  23. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #23
    I was being sarcastic.
     
  24. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #24
    Like the Fed for sitting back and watching it happen?

    This has to be done ... and now.
     
  25. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #25
    yes, but responsibly. Taking an extra day or two now will save years of headaches later. I don't want you to lose any more of your money either.
     

Share This Page