Romney's Bipartisan Myth: He played so well w/Dems, he issued 844 vetoes against them

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
I'll take "False Equivalency" for $1000, Alex...

Couldn't agree more. It was after all the Clinton Admin that successfully got the repeal of Glass-Stegal which single handedly allowed this all to happen.


PS: For those that wish to agree with me just because I am telling the truth about the Dems, the Republicans suck huge donkey dick too.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Couldn't agree more. It was after all the Clinton Admin that successfully got the repeal of Glass-Stegal which single handedly allowed this all to happen.


PS: For those that wish to agree with me just because I am telling the truth about the Dems, the Republicans suck huge donkey dick too.

Except Congress comes up with legislation. Republicans proposed removed Glass-Steagull, and it was put in a much bigger bill.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Ineffective? They were the Congress in power for the 2007 and 2008 budgets. They had a supermajority when the POTUS was their party leader. That's not ineffective, that's incompetence. That party hasn't changed btw, it's still the same leadership by far and large.



I'd say the same to you, in light of your debunked 'buh Bush' rant.



The irony of you telling me this is....irony. You're proposing we needed to spend even more than we've spent, on the basis that, when times are good, we'll pay down that debt. Results are results, and history for the past hundred years is set in stone. Which is why we know what you're purporting to happen is complete and total BS. Which makes your case for continuing to blow large sums of money one dangerously close to total BS. Notice I said dangerously close, I left an out for you there. Just find some better yang to the yin of $1T yearly deficits acting as yearly stimulus and maybe we can revisit.



Er, I'm not sure that makes your point. Your point is you want the Dems to spend even more money, so you hope there's no gridlock. The example I gave was partly one of Germany who enacted austerity measures, the opposite of what you're proposing. How is that making your point, other than they didn't do gridlock?

As far as gridlock goes, if I had any confidence that any Congress and any POTUS could actually do what's right for the US long term, I'd not want gridlock or scorched earth policy. I have -110% confidence in either of those bodies of government. It is a guarantee neither candidate is who we really need, and it is a guarantee that Congress, regardless of which party controls it, will suck at their duties.

I can understand the hope in thinking otherwise though, I don't fault people for that...

Chuck

Nope, they never had a supermajority. One guy was sick after the first 6 weeks and died a few months later. Another that you'd have to include for the bogus supermajority claim was kicked out of the democratic party.

Lying from the start doesn't work well.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Forgot to comment on this. You seem to lack any sense of actual scale, which you should have when you bother to comment on things like this. 14.5 trillion dollars bleed out of companies practically over night. It was the worst economic collapse since the great depression. So when you talk about single and double trillions in stimulus to try to recover. That's only a tiny fraction compared to the problem at hand.

Lets say that number is true. Your solution is then, what? Have the Fed spend how much to "stimulate" the economy? $14.5T Why not $30T? Heck, why not spend $100T and we'll be stimulated as F, we won't even need have an unemployment rate stat, because it'll be meaningless.

The multiple - borrowed - T's that have been spent by the Fed, those aren't enough. Exactly how many more did you want spent?
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Ineffective and incompetent are not mutually exclusive, and a super-majority for democrats doesn't mean too much as democrats don't work together nearly as well as republicans. They're a fairly mixed bag of ideas.

When it comes to the Dems, they are mutally exclusive. The Dems had to sit on their hands for years as the Reps ran the show. Then in 2006 they had the reigns handed to them via Congress, and then doubly, heck, almost triply so, in 2008. If the Dems couldn't get what they had on their list waiting for years done with those type of numbers and public support, they'll never get anything done. This is an excuse, not a reason.

If you bothered to look up charts on national debt you'd see it's gone down during all time other then recessions and when Reagan and Bush Jr. were presidents.

I've looked this up in the past, and No, it's not gone down. Ever. There was only one time where it might have fart measured "gone down" during Clinton last term, but to such a meaningless degree, we can say, It's never gone down. Here, from 94 to current: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...tions_to_the_public_debt_of_the_United_States

That's not down, it's up. Period.

Yea, when times are good income goes up. That doesn't take a genius to figure out. Some people actually make it part of their plan rather then squander it, believe it or not! If things are setup right you shouldn't need to make massive cuts when times are good.

Some people do, that's true. Not our Politicians however. Our Politicians, on both sides of the aisle, squander it. Guaranteed. If there is anything you can bet your life on, it's that if you give a $1 to the Fed, they'll spend it and .50c on top of it.

If things are setup right, how could one not make massive cuts to Fed spending when times are good? How else are you going to pay down to the massive debt you've got on the books? Raise taxes?? Sorry, The Public will not allow that, because, Hey!, times are good! And, our Politicians like getting relected, so the second thing you can bet your life on is, any Politician thinking about their career/legacy (which, is all of them) will be making sure to get re-elected. You don't get re-elected explaining to the 99% why taxes need to go up in these good times to pay for the bad time stimulus...the 50% or so of that 99% wants to enjoy the good times, buy more iPods for their kids to break and Made in China clothes for their wife to throw in the closet, not hear they need to be taxed more. Are you crazy here or something???

Simply ceasing stimulus spending and having increased income should be sufficient. It's when you cut taxes like crazy and have unfunded wars when times are good that shit really hits the fan when something like the great recession happens. Also, see my other post about scale. It's really tiring when one side doesn't understand what actually is going on in the world.

What? Gezus, exactly how much do you think your stimulus spending is going to spur the economy? 5:1 multiple or something? For every $1T in stimulus you need maybe $5T in gross taxable income. If we spent $4T+ so far, do you think we got $20T+ back into the economy - over baseline - to break even? And according to the theory you're supporting, it's not even $20T+ we need, because we can't break even, we need to go beyond even to get ahead of the debt.

Yeah, Bush had unfunded wars, that is absolutely on him and the Reps. Should have put a WoT tax on Everyones earnings, whether poor or not, non-refundable at tax time, so people would know what they were paying. What's crazy is that, that whole time, Bush was doing stimulus spending, that is, deficit spending. The economy should have been roaring. WTF happened??? Deficit spending doesn't work long term? Huh?

Yes yes, you'd rather see the world burn. I get it. It's emotionally satisfying to you to kind of give an f-u to the politicians by thinking you're screwing up their day. Having a working government starts with the people in a democracy.

No, I'd rather not see the US burn (F the RoTW, they like to whine about us anyways, they can fend for themselves), but out of all the Realistic options I see, I really don't see that not eventually happening. Of course our Politicians will do everything each year to hide the inevitable, numb it up for the public, anything and everything they need to do to hide the turd in the room. Eventually though, they won't be able to hide it. Eventually, no more tricky accounting, BS, Hope and Change, whatever, will hide the fact the US is F'd in a major way. By then the problem will be so large, so systemic, there will be no options on fixing it. Of course, by then, China and India will be larger and more influential than the US.

I'd rather we get real now, experience some pain now, so we don't get to that point. I guess we can agree to disagree. YOu want to deficit spend us out of this, I don't. Vote for Obama, I'll vote for....maybe Obama. See? You got what you wanted!

Chuck
 
Last edited:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Nope, they never had a supermajority. One guy was sick after the first 6 weeks and died a few months later. Another that you'd have to include for the bogus supermajority claim was kicked out of the democratic party.

Lying from the start doesn't work well.

Who F'ing cares. if they didn't have a super majority then they had numbers so F'ing close to one as to be good enough if their plan didn't suck and they included - for real - the Reps. Some Reps would cross the aisle given the proper incentive and public political pressure, given they'd be up for re-election themselves.

The Dem's didn't. They were handed the keys to the castle, dropped them into the quicksand that is Reid and Pelosi ego, and couldn't get them back. Talk about F'ing up from the start...
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
It doesn't work that way. If you don't have a super majority then you get filibustered. And the republicans have proven they will block anything and everything to advance their political scorched earth agenda.

Doesn't matter if you are 'so close to having it.' You either have it or you don't.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,341
28,615
136
Couldn't agree more. It was after all the Clinton Admin that successfully got the repeal of Glass-Stegal which single handedly allowed this all to happen.


PS: For those that wish to agree with me just because I am telling the truth about the Dems, the Republicans suck huge donkey dick too.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall was indroduced by Republicans, promoted by Republicans, opposed by many Democrats, and even if Clinton wanted to veto it, it passed the Senate with ~90 votes. Tell us again how the Clinton Admin "successfully got the repeal."
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,341
28,615
136
Lets say that number is true. Your solution is then, what? Have the Fed spend how much to "stimulate" the economy? $14.5T Why not $30T? Heck, why not spend $100T and we'll be stimulated as F, we won't even need have an unemployment rate stat, because it'll be meaningless.

The multiple - borrowed - T's that have been spent by the Fed, those aren't enough. Exactly how many more did you want spent?
Reductio ad absurdum is only valid when it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man. I hope you can wrap your head around this concept so you can avoid this type of embarrassment in the future.
 

csteggo

Member
Jul 5, 2004
70
0
0
Who F'ing cares. if they didn't have a super majority then they had numbers so F'ing close to one as to be good enough if their plan didn't suck and they included - for real - the Reps. Some Reps would cross the aisle given the proper incentive and public political pressure, given they'd be up for re-election themselves.

The Dem's didn't. They were handed the keys to the castle, dropped them into the quicksand that is Reid and Pelosi ego, and couldn't get them back. Talk about F'ing up from the start...

One of the differences between the two parties has been the ability of the Republicans to vote in lockstep. The democrats have difficulty pulling their guys in line and they have less a tendency to stick to the party line. And no Lieberman can never really be considered a democrat so they did not have a supermajority... Take a look at how many bills were not even brought up due to a threat of filibuster. Feel free to have your own opinion but it really is not supported by facts.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
It doesn't work that way. If you don't have a super majority then you get filibustered. And the republicans have proven they will block anything and everything to advance their political scorched earth agenda.

Doesn't matter if you are 'so close to having it.' You either have it or you don't.

One of the differences between the two parties has been the ability of the Republicans to vote in lockstep. The democrats have difficulty pulling their guys in line and they have less a tendency to stick to the party line. And no Lieberman can never really be considered a democrat so they did not have a supermajority... Take a look at how many bills were not even brought up due to a threat of filibuster. Feel free to have your own opinion but it really is not supported by facts.

That's the Dems problem to fix then, not the US public. If they can't manage to get bills proposed, and market those bills to the US public and Reps, in such a way as to get them through a fillibuster by the Rep Leadership, then they don't deserve to have their bills enacted. The Reps have been terrible Yes, but the Dems have been at least as bad squandering their 2006-2010 opportunities, most especially after 2008.

Quit making excuses for the Dems, it allows them to continue sucking at our expense.

Chuck
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Reductio ad absurdum is only valid when it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man. I hope you can wrap your head around this concept so you can avoid this type of embarrassment in the future.

The only thing absurd is your sides argument that continued massive deficit spending on a scale even greater than we've done is the answer to everything. If deficit spending is so awesome as your side purports, then more deficit spending would only be better. No strawman in that, I hope you can wrap your head around your arguments failure, but I'm not holding my breath...

Chuck
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,681
2,431
126
I live in CT which has had Dem supermajorities in the legislature for years, if not decades. OTOH since roughly 1970 or so most of our govenors have been GOP. I don't think any of the GOP govenors have exercised their veto power more than a half dozen times a year, and our govenors (Dem or GOP) tend to veto far more frequently and for less reason than is done on the federl level.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I live in CT which has had Dem supermajorities in the legislature for years, if not decades. OTOH since roughly 1970 or so most of our govenors have been GOP. I don't think any of the GOP govenors have exercised their veto power more than a half dozen times a year, and our govenors (Dem or GOP) tend to veto far more frequently and for less reason than is done on the federl level.

I live in CA with the exact same situation, super-majorities of dems in the legislator and mainly GOP govs since 1970 (Reagan-Duekmajian-Wilson,Schwartzenegger). None has exercised the veto power nearly that often either.

I think Romney planned to run for POTUS right from the beginning, and he knew he had no chance in the primaries if he was seen as too often complicit with dem sponsored legislation.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Cool info. One of the things I most love about Gary Johnson is his liberal use of the veto pen. Now it's also one of the things I most love about Mitt Romney. Hopefully a President Romney will be equally enthusiastic about the veto.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Repeal of Glass-Steagall was indroduced by Republicans, promoted by Republicans, opposed by many Democrats, and even if Clinton wanted to veto it, it passed the Senate with ~90 votes. Tell us again how the Clinton Admin "successfully got the repeal."


Clinton still signed it he owns it.

gramm leach bliley can still go straight to hell.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Clinton still signed it he owns it.

gramm leach bliley can still go straight to hell.
Meh. To a degree, yes. He did sign it. But President Dole would also have signed it. This is a bipartisan problem and the Republicans are even worse than the Democrats.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
That's because the dems in the state of taxachusetts would like nothing more than additional money to spend on their pet projects. Did you know that in MA you have to pay a fee just to have a hearing for a traffic ticket? A fee for which you are not reimbursed, even if the ticket gets thrown out? And to have an appeal hearing, that's gonna cost you an additional fee? You have the dems to thank for that, who pushed the legislation through after overriding the governor's veto. Welcome to leftist utopia.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,106
2,157
136
They were budget line-item vetoes where he was trying to reduce the budget deficit. If the dem majority was trying to spend more money and make the deficit larger then Romney was doing the right thing. I don't see a problem there.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
That's because the dems in the state of taxachusetts would like nothing more than additional money to spend on their pet projects. Did you know that in MA you have to pay a fee just to have a hearing for a traffic ticket? A fee for which you are not reimbursed, even if the ticket gets thrown out? And to have an appeal hearing, that's gonna cost you an additional fee? You have the dems to thank for that, who pushed the legislation through after overriding the governor's veto. Welcome to leftist utopia.
Not sure that's fair. Here in Tennessee I've twice contested tickets and had them thrown out, and both times I had to pay court costs which were to the penny the same cost as the ticket. The house always wins.