Nancy blinked: 5.7 for Wall............developing.

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

17 hours ago, riversco said:

You mean like when the democrats bash trickle down economics, but turn around and celebrate Obama bailing out the banks in 2009 on the premise that the effect of that bailout will trickle down to the rest of the economy and general public?

 

The bank bailouts occurred during President Bush's term.   Also, they had NOTHING to do with trickle down economics, but otherwise, spot-on post.     

[JustinCharge 2,397]

53 minutes ago, Kanil said:

You're comparing apples to oranges. Did trickle down economics take a power away from Congress?  That's what's happening here.  Now anytime a president doesn't get what they want funded they can declare a national emergency and take the money.  You'll be one of the first in here deriding it when a Democrat does it and I'm gonna be here to point out the idiocy again. 

I am not comparing apples to oranges.  We're looking at policy shifts vs hypocritical thinking.

Congress has had terrible approval ratings for about 10 years now.  I mean truly terrible.  Almost universally despised. We may be seeing a shift where the executive begins to take power from congress.

[joneo 529]

2 hours ago, Kanil said:

Your"fight fire with fire" excuses it at the very least.   People should be upset and calling him out on this.   He'll listen to his base but they're silent on it because they want to win the wall war. 

Just like you called out Obama right?  Speaking of hypocrites, look in the mirror

[jerryskids 5,172]

26 minutes ago, riversco said:

I am not comparing apples to oranges.  We're looking at policy shifts vs hypocritical thinking.

Congress has had terrible approval ratings for about 10 years now.  I mean truly terrible.  Almost universally despised. We may be seeing a shift where the executive begins to take power from congress.

TBBOM may have been more prescient than I thought. 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

59 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

The bank bailouts occurred during President Bush's term.   Also, they had NOTHING to do with trickle down economics, but otherwise, spot-on post.     

Technically, the bailouts occurred during Bush's term, but they were doing as Obama requested because he was taking office in just a few weeks.  It wouldn't make sense to have a partisan fight over bailouts in the middle of a crash and a presidential transition, so they did as the incoming president requested. 

The other option would be for Bush to implement one solution and then for Obama to come in a few weeks later and rip it all up and go in another direction.  That would have looked terrible all the way around.  There was a contingent of republicans in congress who stood against the bailouts, but the democrats were very loud and vocal in defending trickle down at the time.

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

5 minutes ago, riversco said:

Technically, the bailouts occurred during Bush's term, but they were doing as Obama requested because he was taking office in just a few weeks.  It wouldn't make sense to have a partisan fight over bailouts in the middle of a crash and a presidential transition, so they did as the incoming president requested. 

He hadn't even been elected yet...just quit.   

Quote

 

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Division A of Pub.L. 110–343, 122 Stat. 3765, enacted October 3, 2008), commonly referred to as a bailout of the U.S. financial system, is a law enacted subsequently to the subprime mortgage crisis authorizing the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and supply cash directly to banks. The funds for purchase of distressed assets were mostly redirected to inject capital into banks and other financial institutions while the Treasury continued to examine the usefulness of targeted asset purchases.^[1][2] Both foreign and domestic banks are included in the program. The Act was proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the global financial crisis of 2008 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.

 

 

 

 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

13 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

He hadn't even been elected yet...just quit.   

 

Oh boy.

 

 

You don't remember what happened in 2008?

 

Here you go.  In October 2008, Bush signed TARP into law to provide bailout money.  They were able to get this through congress because of one KEY provision.  While TARP established funding for the project, it also gave congress the power to block funds.  So the president had to go to congress and get approval.  So technically they passed a bill before Obama was elected but it was a bill that just set up framework for bailouts.

This is why, in December, there was a republican revolt to block TARP spending.  If you weren't paying attention, it doesn't make sense how congress could block TARP in December despite passing it in October.  That's because you missed the part where the thing they passed in October was just a framework.

In December they were talking about injecting $1.2 billion dollars into the bailout.  This is what Obama wanted (who at this time was now president-elect) and what republicans in congress opposed.  There was a failed vote on December 12th, 2008 and then the democrats took the case to the people and demanded trickle down economics in full force. 

https://thedailybanter.com/2008/12/auto-bailout-fails-dies-in-senate/

But there was a process of how much to spend and where, and most of that was being directed by Obama even as president-elect.  He may not have been president, but his party had congress and they were following his lead.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

8 hours ago, riversco said:

I am not comparing apples to oranges.  We're looking at policy shifts vs hypocritical thinking.

Congress has had terrible approval ratings for about 10 years now.  I mean truly terrible.  Almost universally despised. We may be seeing a shift where the executive begins to take power from congress.

That shift started decades ago. Presidents basically declare war on their own now.

SCOTUS also long ago began legislating, because Congress won't focking do its job.

It's not good. But how do you make congress do its job?

[shorepatrol 1,735]

16 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

But how do you make congress do its job?

 You can't. They become multi millionaires shortly after getting in making policy for donors to richer. AOC will go from bartender to multi millionaire in a year. (Just an example)It's a sh!t show and always will be. 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

1 hour ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

It's not good. But how do you make congress do its job?

Well, this is basically what happened to the Roman Republic.  The system got so large, so complex and so corrupt that no one cared.  Julius Caesar started a civil war by crossing the Rubicon and no one could stop him so he became dictator.  Then Augustus effectively became emperor.  The senate just allowed it pretty much.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

22 minutes ago, riversco said:

Well, this is basically what happened to the Roman Republic.  The system got so large, so complex and so corrupt that no one cared.  Julius Caesar started a civil war by crossing the Rubicon and no one could stop him so he became dictator.  Then Augustus effectively became emperor.  The senate just allowed it pretty much.

Yep. Eventually some crisis will prompt some leader to take power as a strong man here too. It's happened in every polity to ever exist. 

[Reality 2,710]

20 hours ago, riversco said:

Oh boy.

 

 

You don't remember what happened in 2008?

 

Here you go.  In October 2008, Bush signed TARP into law to provide bailout money.  They were able to get this through congress because of one KEY provision.  While TARP established funding for the project, it also gave congress the power to block funds.  So the president had to go to congress and get approval.  So technically they passed a bill before Obama was elected but it was a bill that just set up framework for bailouts.

This is why, in December, there was a republican revolt to block TARP spending.  If you weren't paying attention, it doesn't make sense how congress could block TARP in December despite passing it in October.  That's because you missed the part where the thing they passed in October was just a framework.

In December they were talking about injecting $1.2 billion dollars into the bailout.  This is what Obama wanted (who at this time was now president-elect) and what republicans in congress opposed.  There was a failed vote on December 12th, 2008 and then the democrats took the case to the people and demanded trickle down economics in full force. 

https://thedailybanter.com/2008/12/auto-bailout-fails-dies-in-senate/

But there was a process of how much to spend and where, and most of that was being directed by Obama even as president-elect.  He may not have been president, but his party had congress and they were following his lead.

Honcho is a fkn idiot.

HTH

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,497]

28 minutes ago, Reality said:

Honcho is a fkn idiot.

HTH

But he's really good at regurgitating the latest liberal talking points.  No thought required!

[MDC 5,877]

Congress probably wasn’t prepared to allocate those funds, What with Trump promising Mexico would foot the bill and all.

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

23 hours ago, riversco said:

Oh boy.

 

 

You don't remember what happened in 2008?

 

Here you go.  In October 2008, Bush signed TARP into law to provide bailout money.  They were able to get this through congress because of one KEY provision.  While TARP established funding for the project, it also gave congress the power to block funds.  So the president had to go to congress and get approval.  So technically they passed a bill before Obama was elected but it was a bill that just set up framework for bailouts.

This is why, in December, there was a republican revolt to block TARP spending.  If you weren't paying attention, it doesn't make sense how congress could block TARP in December despite passing it in October.  That's because you missed the part where the thing they passed in October was just a framework.

In December they were talking about injecting $1.2 billion dollars into the bailout.  This is what Obama wanted (who at this time was now president-elect) and what republicans in congress opposed.  There was a failed vote on December 12th, 2008 and then the democrats took the case to the people and demanded trickle down economics in full force. 

https://thedailybanter.com/2008/12/auto-bailout-fails-dies-in-senate/

But there was a process of how much to spend and where, and most of that was being directed by Obama even as president-elect.  He may not have been president, but his party had congress and they were following his lead.

I can't decide what's funnier, the guy who claims that a direct bailout of a company is 'Trickle Down' economics

2 hours ago, Reality said:

Honcho is a fkn idiot.

HTH

or the idiot who standing on the sidelines cheering on the first guy.    

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

Sorry Honcho, the bailouts were  a group effort. Bush, Obama and both houses all wanted it and approved of it. If Obama didn't want it to happen it wouldn't have. It is known. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,497]

11 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Sorry Honcho, the bailouts were  a group effort. Bush, Obama and both houses all wanted it and approved of it. If Obama didn't want it to happen it wouldn't have. It is known. 

Honcho will be back - needs to check in with liberal masters to determine what spin to post on this.

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Sorry Honcho, the bailouts were  a group effort. Bush, Obama and both houses all wanted it and approved of it. If Obama didn't want it to happen it wouldn't have. It is known. 

 

Great...never said it wasn't...what I said it wasn't Trickle down economics(but thanks for the group effort part---riversco is convinced it was a Obama program).    Sorry HT you have so much trouble reading.

 

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Honcho will be back - needs to check in with liberal masters to determine what spin to post on this.

Another cheerleader cheering on another wrong answer.   

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,497]

4 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Great...never said it wasn't...what I said it wasn't Trickle down economics(but thanks for the group effort part---riversco is convinced it was a Obama program).    Sorry HT you have so much trouble reading.

Another cheerleader cheering on another wrong answer.   

I mean, you can keep saying the answer is wrong but that doesn't make it true.

Geez, dude, you got schooled pretty bad today.  Take your lumps and go home while you still have some dignity.

[sderk 1,040]

7 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I mean, you can keep saying the answer is wrong but that doesn't make it true.

Geez, dude, you got schooled pretty bad today.  Take your lumps and go home while you still have some dignity.

He never does. And he doesn't have any in the first place.

[MDC 5,877]

Haha - Yeah! Honcho is a straight up JERK! He will nevah come back from that pwnage.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

If you doubt Obama wasn't in on the bailouts, his appointment of Geithner as the head of Treasury should have cleared any of those doubts. 

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

47 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I mean, you can keep saying the answer is wrong but that doesn't make it true.

Geez, dude, you got schooled pretty bad today.  Take your lumps and go home while you still have some dignity.

 But you saying I got schooled makes that true.   

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,497]

39 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 But you saying I got schooled makes that true.   

Try to keep up.  Not just me, everyone.  Fact beat you down pretty hard too.    

Well, except your girl MDC.  She's in here cheer-leading for you as usual.  Did you put up the rescue signal for her to get in here asap to protect you?  Or maybe she just has an innate sense of when you need rescuing?

[sderk 1,040]

57 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 But you saying I got schooled makes that true.   

Dumb@ss. You get schooled every time anyone replies to you.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

On 2/16/2019 at 3:19 AM, shorepatrol said:

The left is actively trying to convince the country the constitution is irrelevant today. They are saying it out focking loud. 

They are certainly not taking an effort to hide it much anymore.

Is this part of Trump's plan? To expose them and make them reveal their true intentions/nature? Exposing their racism, murdering babies that have been born, unchecked immigration to make sure their voting populace stays up.........

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

10 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Try to keep up.  Not just me, everyone.  Fact beat you down pretty hard too.    

Well, except your girl MDC.  She's in here cheer-leading for you as usual.  Did you put up the rescue signal for her to get in here asap to protect you?  Or maybe she just has an innate sense of when you need rescuing?

Delicious, delicious irony.   

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

In case anyone thought signing the spending bill hamstrung the President on building an actual wall or actually enforcing our immigration laws, think again.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-28/

The restrictions he agreed to on the barrier only apply to the 1.3 billion. All other funds are free from restriction. Same with other funds.

Again, I ask why are Chuck and Nancy trying to get the better of him after all these beatings he's thrown them?