Labor's Shameful Charade in Wisconsin Has Failed

[ATOMonkey]

Do we hold every elected representative directly responsible for every single piece of already-in-existence legislation simply because they didn't get rid of the bad stuff?

Do we hold our representatives directly accountable for not reforming entitlements?

Once elected, ALL laws become their responsibility. IMO...

If you ignore a problem, that doesn't absolve your responsibility.

 

[Phil502]

A video of the liars in action. My favorite at about 1.0 minute in, Rep. Meeks says he's pissed off.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs[/ame]

 

[eatsnopaste]

And no, I'm not going to look up cites for you. I argued this on Topix when it was fresh, complete with full citation. I don't really care what anybody thinks today.

Then why answer at all? Just so we can see how smart you are?

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Well obviously you all are Republican propagandists... I am just going to move on to the next thread where I can continue to proclaim the truth as related to me by my Obamessiah.

In his defense, he wasn't praising the Democratic party either. He was giving share equally. Which to some he is right in that most people on thsi forum do not hold the republicans to the same standards as the democrats because they align with that particular party.

Both parties peddle piles of crap, both parties will and do lie, cheat, steal, and swindle if it keeps them in office and $$ in their pocket. They are all bought and paid for, all of them, even the tea party.

Do we hold every elected representative directly responsible for every single piece of already-in-existence legislation simply because they didn't get rid of the bad stuff?

Of course, why shouldn't we? After all, it is their job to change things for the better, to get rid of the bad stuff if you will.

 

[Pocketman]

With good reason. They were the ones with the power to stop it from happening. They were the ones directly responsible for moving them from passed bills to law of the land. If you can show me where either Bush had a hand in making it happen, then you might have some ground on which to stand. None of this is to say that Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. didn't have a hand in other pieces of legislation that contributed to the problem.

Point I was trying to make is, we cannot lay this at the feet of a single administration or party. Several policies and politicians over a period of years, have brought us to our current economic state. Along that same line of reasoning, those who think simply replacing Obama is going to fix this will likely be disappointed.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Feel free to believe what you choose.

That's totally fair of you, since you seem to want to believe what YOU choose despite competing facts. Your intellectual honesty is underwhelming, sir.

 

[Jake46184]

....those who think simply replacing Obama is going to fix this will likely be disappointed.

Agreed 100%. The mess didn't start with Obama and it will not be solved by his replacement. It has taken decades to get to the edge of the cliff and backing away from it will also take decades (if we muster the backbone to do it at all, which is highly doubtful.) Until either side has a firm control of Congress, with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (this is truly the key to a fix if there is to be one), nothing of significance is going to happen. If the GOP gets control, and owns the Senate, they then must show that they have the backbone to end the welfare state. The word entitlement does not appear in the U.S. Constitution and it must be removed from our government as well. For any true recovery to happen, the welfare state must end.

The undeniable benefit to getting rid of Barack Hussein is that we will at least quit running in a sprint for the cliff's edge. ANY GOP replacement (with or without control of the Senate) will slow the tide.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Both political parties are serving Kool-Aid (and some tea). It's just a matter of which flavor you drink. The root cause of most of the dysfunction in Washington is conflict over who gets our money. The object is to acquire power though buying political support and votes.

Helping Wall Street gain wealth, does not trickle down to Main Street. It will however provide campaign money. Protecting social programs buys votes. So here we see two extremes, and the middle class is financing both of them.

While both parties may be playing the Great Game, only the Democrats seem to be successful at shaking down Wall Street AND getting credit for 'helping the poooooor and downtrodden'.

We'd all like to point CRA fingers at Carter and Clinton. GW did nothing to change this policy. He in fact cited U.S. home ownership as an accomplishment. People were happy to own homes they would not otherwise be able to afford and bankers were making money buying and selling the loans. Everyone was happy, so no one was motivated to change.

George Bush, in fact, tried to get Congress to jettison the CRA regulations requiring banks to lend to non-qualifiying buyers, but he didn't have the votes to get it done and the Democrats screamed like smashed cats when he tried.

I am probably over simplifying this, but IMO it boils down to a systemic problem that Americans want to see changed and neither party has the courage to tackle. Obama was elected on "hope" because people were unhappy with the Bush-Cheney era. The Tea Party gained traction because people were not seeing the fruits expected from Obama. I predict the Tea Party folks will loose seats because people are unhappy with the way they handled the debt ceiling debate. It's all about kicking out the people who are in power, not growing America.

BTW - Obama may have inherited this mess, but he owns it now and has not shown much leadership toward fixing it.

In regards to the OP - the mandate is change, not Republicans or Democrats.

Looking ahead, I don't think the "Tea Party" is going to lose as much traction as you may think, because many people seem to see what is happening to them in the light of the hypocrisy of many of our representatives. I'm not sure we can pull back from the spending cliff, because the ratio of net payers to net takers is approaching 1:1. I don't see much backlash coming to "Tea Party(s)" because, unlike the Dem's supporters, they don't need constant infusions of "Obama's 'Stash" (or Union Cash) to get out there and vote, and Tea Partiers aren't dumb enough to believe that shutting up is going to change things for them.

 

[Phil502]

Looks like the Democrats kept their two seats yesterday.

 

[Pocketman]

Was it really a "shameful charade" since they picked up two seats and lost zero?

 

[mrjarrell]

Was it really a "shameful charade" since they picked up two seats and lost zero?

Sounds like a victory, to me.

 

[Phil502]

Depends, the idea was to take control of the Senate.....they failed. Should recall elections be held every time we disagree with lawmakers?

 

[mrjarrell]

Depends, the idea was to take control of the Senate.....they failed. Should recall elections be held every time we disagree with lawmakers?

Might keep them on their toes and actually causing no harm.

 

[Phil502]

Might keep them on their toes and actually causing no harm.

Had to cost the state something though.

 

[Pocketman]

Depends, the idea was to take control of the Senate.....they failed. Should recall elections be held every time we disagree with lawmakers?

I no longer have family living in Wisconsin, so don't have a dog in this fight. However, recall is a constituional tool in their political process. Removal of two sitting representatives should serve as a reminder to others.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Do we hold our representatives directly accountable for not reforming entitlements?

Once elected, ALL laws become their responsibility. IMO...

If you ignore a problem, that doesn't absolve your responsibility.

This kind of throw-away statement is as asinine as saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse." When there are hundreds of thousands of laws, no one can be expected to know them all. There can be all sorts of timebombs buried in legislation that will come out to bite the unwary - or even the wary - years or decades later. And Legislatures rarely understand all the possible consequences of laws they enact.

I'm not calling you names or accusing you of not thinking, but I think you are mistaken here, not about ignoring a problem, but about thinking that every President was aware of the possible consequences of these laws.

And if no one else does, I remember Bush Jr attempting to get the CRA laws changed during his term in office - with much screaming from the Democrats about how changes were unnecessary and prejudicial to the poor.

 

[Bummer]

That's totally fair of you, since you seem to want to believe what YOU choose despite competing facts. Your intellectual honesty is underwhelming, sir.

I'm sorry. I have a job that at times requires my attention immediately. Sometimes the response has to be short. The paycheck is worth it.

You refer to competing facts. I see competing opinions.

I present you with half a dozen pieces of a thousand piece puzzle. What's it a picture of?

The fact is I don't have the time to look up a series of Wall Street Journal articles that directly addressed what happened several years ago. At the time I was the Free Market enthusiast who lost an argument. I wish that neither was the case, but life does that sometimes. Nothing much I can do about it.

 

[ATOMonkey]

This kind of throw-away statement is as asinine as saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse." When there are hundreds of thousands of laws, no one can be expected to know them all. There can be all sorts of timebombs buried in legislation that will come out to bite the unwary - or even the wary - years or decades later. And Legislatures rarely understand all the possible consequences of laws they enact.

I'm not calling you names or accusing you of not thinking, but I think you are mistaken here, not about ignoring a problem, but about thinking that every President was aware of the possible consequences of these laws.

And if no one else does, I remember Bush Jr attempting to get the CRA laws changed during his term in office - with much screaming from the Democrats about how changes were unnecessary and prejudicial to the poor.

Being the Chief Executive comes with being responsible for everything. As Obama borrowed the turn of phrase, "the buck stops here." It is wholely appropriate to hold the chief executive responsible for everything that occurs during his/her administration. Especially government programs and legislation.

Good for GWB for trying to get it changed. I do applaud him for attempting to reform existing legislation while in office.

Yes, some things will sneak through. The CRA, and how it operates, is hardly clandestine or burried in legislation somewhere.

The fact of the matter is that most presidents supported the CRA, or at least parts of it.

 

[Phil502]

I no longer have family living in Wisconsin, so don't have a dog in this fight. However, recall is a constituional tool in their political process. Removal of two sitting representatives should serve as a reminder to others.

Reminder of what exactly? That you can be removed?

 

[Expat]

Being the Chief Executive comes with being responsible for everything. As Obama borrowed the turn of phrase, "the buck stops here." It is wholely appropriate to hold the chief executive responsible for everything that occurs during his/her administration. Especially government programs and legislation.

Good for GWB for trying to get it changed. I do applaud him for attempting to reform existing legislation while in office.

Yes, some things will sneak through. The CRA, and how it operates, is hardly clandestine or burried in legislation somewhere.

The fact of the matter is that most presidents supported the CRA, or at least parts of it.

The Bush Administration saw it was a house of cards that was going to collapse but there was too much money being siphoned to members of Congress. Of course they were against any changes. So we reaped what our masters had sown. As usual.