Monday, August 2, 2010

Who has controlled what?

I find it interesting that so many liberals / democrats are continuing to blame all of our problems on Republicans, and especially Bush, on just about everything.

But I have one point here: You can't put blame, if that's what you want to do, on just one party or person. Congress, and more specifically the House, controls spending. Without spending, the President can't do anything. There was a good reason for this, and it continues to be a good reason: Division of power.

Since 1945, Democrats have had a majority in the house 51 years, the Republicans only 14 years. The Senate has been controlled by the Democrats for 45 years, the Republicans only 20.

For the executive branch, Democrats have ruled for 29, Republicans 36. This is a little more equitable, but if we go back 12 more years, to 1933 when Roosevelt took over, then Democrats have ruled for 41 out of 77 years, or more than half the time.

So generally speaking, over the last several decades, it has been Democratic programs and policies. So are we better off than we were in 1945, or 1965, or 1985? It doesn't seem so, and in many cases things are worse, despite decades of liberal policies.

Maybe it's time for something new. Vote them all out and start over.


Anonymous said...

The years in question, that have caused the problems we are now dealing with, have the Republican stamp all over them. The financial budget busting, unfunded wars, disastrous energy policy, and changes in documenting income for a home loan (none), all seeds for the current disaster, were from your Republican cohorts. Must be hard to admit, so you blame it on Democrats,going back to the 30's. Unbelievable, but typical.

Steve said...

The whole idea of big government started before the 1930s, but it wasn't until then that the democrats had the opportunity to grow government.

Other facts:
1. Under Democrat house leadership during the last 65 years, deficits were 10.374 trillion (in current dollars). Republicans had 4.3 trillion. But of course it's obvious that if they'd been in power more often, it would have evened out. If you study the average deficit, it equals out to 307 billion per year for the repubs and 253 billion for the dems, so I'd say that both parties have had their spending sprees. The Repubs would have been better except for the necessary Reagan deficits. These is one of the reason that the repubs got fired by voters in 06.

Our desire to produce more domestic energy has been repeatedly blocked by the democrats.

the mortgage underwriting mess was started by the Dems under the CRA, first put in place during Jimmy the-worst-president-ever Carter's term, and strengthened under Clinton with his dem buddies in the House. When the repubs wanted more control over Freddie and Fannie in the mid-2000s, it was blocked by the Dems.

The wars were funded, by borrowed dollars, just like the current "stimulus." The wars are still "unfunded" so not much has changed. Of course, we're drawing down in Iraq, under an SOF signed during the Bush administration, so Obama really hasn't done anything except send everyone from Iraq to Afganistan.

Going back to the Reagan deficits, in real dollars, Obama has already racked up more debt in 2 years than Reagan did in 8. These were necessary due to the recession and the cold war (which if you remember, we won).

These are all facts. I did not make any of it up.

Anonymous said...

SO, why do you think Obama is racking up this huge debt? He just likes to blow money? And, mortgage underwriting by the gov't wasn't a problem, UNTIL, the rules were changed, under the Bush admin, so liar loans became the norm. That's when the problem started, not during Clinton, etc.

Steve said...

Find me one credible source that puts the blame on Bush for the "liar loans" as you call them. And I do mean credible. Just because you keep repeating the same "facts" doesn't make them true.

Steve said...

OK. I'll give you this much. This is from IDB, which is a very credible business newspaper:

"Starting in 2000, HUD required Fannie and Freddie to position fully half their mortgage portfolios in high-risk, low-income loans — despite a spike in subprime foreclosures at the time. The "affirmative action" credit quotas, raised higher still by Bush's two Hispanic HUD secretaries, drove the mortgage giants into the subprime market — and eventually into financial insolvency."

So what Carter and Clinton started, and the Bushies pushed even further, is the cause. But when Republicans in the House held hearings (in 2004 I believe), Franks, Waters, et al, blocked every effort to reel in the excesses.

There is enough blame to go around. And guess what? Congress is now holding hearings (or was last month) on how to expand the CRA.

And I think Obama thinks all this government spending is a good thing. I do not. And so far, I haven't seen any evidence to support Obama's case.

Sad, but true.

Anonymous said...

Obama's spending tons of money, mostly because he is forced to, in an effort to keep us afloat after the Bush train wreck. AS for proof Bush OK'd liar loans? Give me a break, they started approx 5 years into his admin. It's not the loans before then that are causing the problems.

Steve said...

I give you the facts, and yet you still dispute them. Do you even read what I post? Or is everything in your world view tied to your insane hatred of Bush?

I give up. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Jim said...

"SO, why do you think Obama is racking up this huge debt? He just likes to blow money?"

Yes I know he likes to blow money. Our tax money has been wasted on how many vacations? To Spain, Hawaii, Florida, Illinois, Copenhagen, shopping spree for the kids in Europe, Martha's Vineyard and now michelle is taking 40 of her friends to Spain on Air Force 2. Bush at least spent his at Camp David or home in Texas. Then there is all the golf outings. Then there is all the concerts with Dylan, McCartney, Stevie Wonder, Santana and others. The New York Date at $100,000. obamas act more like celebrities than leaders. Millions of our tax dollars wasted for how many vacations and etc. at a time when our country is bankrupt and 9.5% unemployment. All these vacations and etc. for 1 1/2 years of time in office. most new hires at a job only get 2 weeks off after the first year.

Bigger government, more regulations and entitlements, uncontrolled spending and higher taxes is not only not the correct answer it will ruin this country.