Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice try very nice trail. But again fail. Point too in my statement where I defended, agreed with, or praised the stimulas.
The only businesses that i've heard the government discussed intervening where required are those businesses that accepted bailout money, but still are loosing money.
The same action occured last year with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack but it was done quietly. Its kind of a catch 22, this administration make an announcement for everything, there by having their actions scrutinized, where the former administrations kept things quiet.
Would you agree, if not for the stimulus, there would be no profit for these banks?I'm not saying, thanks to Obama considering the bailout was made on Bush watch, but this administration as well as Congress on both sides, have made it perfectly clear that another bailout will not be without consequences.
Here you defended the sloppiness of way the bill was handled.. http://www.city-data.com/forum/8759648-post5.html Again nice try. Where did I defend or made any excuse? If anything I agreed that the bill was poorly written, so where is my agreement on the stimulas? Still doing that triple lux I see.
Where is the ridicule? You linked to a count down, but where is the ridicule? There was 12 pages to this thread. Maybe you linked the wrong one, this one does not match your little synopsis above. Try again
while ignoring facts that the Bush tax cuts DID cut unemployment, FOR YEARS..
And even here you tried to defend wasteful spending by the stimulus by spinning the blame off on the states http://www.city-data.com/forum/11971760-post10.html
Huh? From the post on where the stimulas money went. Now I wonder if this one you linked by a mistake. The states spending the money like drunken sailors, i'm complaining about the spending and you are actually using this to try and make a point .You are really hilarious today. No I read the entire report and some of these things that the stimulus was used for is laughable and at the same time stupid. But i'm still trying to get a answer on who controls the purse strings once Washington release the funds to the states. This list is cholk full of both Dem and Republican Governors that these two Senators should direct their outrage towards.
Seriously, the humor doesnt ever end!!
You are REALLY off your game again. Try again. LMAO...You are hilarious today
Those in the middle and working class would have gotten more with the Gore plan
They also would have gotten more if we just abolish all taxes, but that would be foolish.. When did Gores plan enter into the discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
instead they got less so Bush could give the very wealthy the bulk of the cut
Wrong, where do you get your news?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
One was focused on the middle and working class, the other focused on the poor.
Yeah, hows that working out for us? How many jobs have been created by the poor this year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Unemployment did not drop after Bush's 1st round of tax cuts.
So now you admit tax cuts indeed created lower unemployment.. But you still complain anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
This time we are actually doing so...
ITS THE SAME PLAN.. it was created by Bush before he left office
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
They were not connected to those who attacked us, not part of our threats. We put those who attacked us on 9/11 on the back burner to go after those who weren't.
They were being supported by those who attacked us.. Again, re-read the 911 Commission report. They might not have been the same groups, but to pretend these groups held no threats either is just ignorance at its finest..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Out of control deficits. The Stimulus wasn't paid for either, but when heading in the direction we were, drastic actions needed to be taken.
Deficits are not contributing to the economic problems.. If it was, then you should be opposing Obamas deficit spending instead of celebrating the continuing wrong direction of the nation. Deficits WILL contribute to the future economic problems when they need to be paid back, but as of yet, that isnt occuring..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
And the bulk of the spending did not include that...
It doesnt need to be the "bulk" in order to contribute..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Poverty rates went down as a result of policies focusing on the middle and working class starting with the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act
The Omnibus Bill imposed tax rates on the wealthiest 1.2% of americans, and dealt with tax rates on corporations. Want to tell me what part of this resulted in poverty rates going down?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
No, the wealthy got a larger tax cut, no matter whether or not they invested the $$, created jobs or shoved it back in their pocket.
Not true at all.. You clearly have no clue how the wealthy pay taxes and how they are incentivized to reinvest profits to lower their tax rates..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Those tax cuts worked so well for job creation that Bush had the worst job creation record of any President since the data started being kept in 1939.
Thats only if you extend the term out for the 8 years of the Bush term and not during the years of the job creations..
Really, you need to open up your mind to reality and stop looking at twisted facts to suit someones adgenda.. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf (broken link)
They also would have gotten more if we just abolish all taxes, but that would be foolish.. When did Gores plan enter into the discussion?
I was comparing continuing to focus on the middle class to focusing on the wealthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Wrong, where do you get your news?
Again, I'm comparing continuing to focus on the middle class to focusing on the wealthy. The cuts proposed by Gore would have given more middle class tax cuts than what Bush did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Yeah, hows that working out for us? How many jobs have been created by the poor this year?
Well we have now saw job growth in 5 consecutive months and 6 of the last 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
So now you admit tax cuts indeed created lower unemployment.. But you still complain anyways.
No, I never said that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
ITS THE SAME PLAN.. it was created by Bush before he left office
After several years of the Democrats pushing for it, Bush finally agreed to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
They were being supported by those who attacked us.. Again, re-read the 911 Commission report. They might not have been the same groups, but to pretend these groups held no threats either is just ignorance at its finest..
No they were not. In fact the 9/11 commission points out the group called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" has no connection to the rest of Al Qaeda. These were not our threats. Our threats were mostly in Afghanistan. That is where the 9/11 attacks were based from and we turned our back on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Deficits are not contributing to the economic problems.. If it was, then you should be opposing Obamas deficit spending instead of celebrating the continuing wrong direction of the nation. Deficits WILL contribute to the future economic problems when they need to be paid back, but as of yet, that isnt occuring..
We need the spending now in order to get the economy back on track which we are slowly moving towards (5 consecutive months of job growth, 6 of 7). The spending in Iraq played a role in the economic downturn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
It doesnt need to be the "bulk" in order to contribute..
That spending would have occurred whether or not we went to war, the spending for the war itself, obviously would not have
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The Omnibus Bill imposed tax rates on the wealthiest 1.2% of americans, and dealt with tax rates on corporations. Want to tell me what part of this resulted in poverty rates going down?
By putting in place economic conditions that favored the middle and working class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Not true at all.. You clearly have no clue how the wealthy pay taxes and how they are incentivized to reinvest profits to lower their tax rates..
Someone in the top 2% received a huge tax cut no matter if they reinvested the $$$ or not. The person making $1,000,000 was getting a tax cut in excess of $50,000 no matter what they did with the $$$
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Thats only if you extend the term out for the 8 years of the Bush term and not during the years of the job creations..
Really, you need to open up your mind to reality and stop looking at twisted facts to suit someones adgenda.. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf (broken link)
1.080 million jobs were added when Bush was President, the single worst record of any President. You can't say oh the bad years don't count. His job record was horrible. The worst on record, period.
Every president, congressman, senator and supreme court judge in history has a part in the failures and successes of our economy, but to say that Bush had nothing to do with it is being about as ignorant and blind as a person can be.
Let's look at the facts:
Bush increased spending, started multiple wars, upped spending on all kinds of military matters while cutting taxes.
Bush came into office with a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit.
In Bush's 8 years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell ~22%
In Clinton's 8 years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose ~223%.
Regardless, if you were a stockholder, you'd have to be retarded to prefer Bush over Clinton...
This is coming from a life-long Republican who voted for Bush Sr., Dole, Libertarian, Libertarian and Libertarian candidates in the last 5 elections.
Point is NAFTA was created by Bush's daddy and JR was an enabler. Remember he had the lowest number of jobs created since the Great Depression? That has something to do with the economy now doesn't it? Jr. never had his own mind and was wired from the start.
"W" is a robot?
Did I miss something here? or are you just trying to take the spot light off of Bush Jr. and Mr Vice President Cheney?
You brought it up.
Your still side stepping the corruption and blatant disregard for our countries citizens.
Corruption? Do tell...
(and it's "you're")
Lets not forget that Jr. tried to veto the bill in '08 but was overridden by both the House and the Senate.
"The bill"?
Bush Sr. helped orchestrate the Enron scandal before Jr was in office.
The little icon in the upper left portion of the page is for starting new threads. Feel free to start a thread about Sr. This one is about Jr.
Have we forgotten the Carlyle Group that Sr. was apart of? did this father son duo not blatantly skate by the American people with clear intentions of self gain?
Once again, not the subject if this thread.
These two clowns made a mockery of our government and is part of the reason so many countries despise us today.
And that caused our current economic problems?
It's important to be optimistic with people of power and at the same time let their actions speak for them. Bush imo was one of the worst in a long list of presidents that enabled the downfall of our country.
Wasn't looking for opinions.
But Iraq was part of the "war on terror" and Saddam was part of the "evil doer's" clan. Al-Quaida was in Iraq remember? or was it just fellow Muslims?
I'm not going to pretend Clinton or Obama are perfect and haven't contributed to our disaster. However the Bush family blatantly ran our government like they were the mafia and got away with it! After Bush's presidency many people lost confidence in our government and have lived in fear ever since. The collapse of this country has fallen into Obama's lap and he will be made the scapegoat.
Facts please.
Until we take corporate money OUT of DC our politicians are mere pawns. There is a reason a 1/3 of our country is now independent and has lost confidence in government and Bush helped create this. We can continue to throw rocks at each party and talk about bipartisanship when it's convenient, but the lobbyists and career politicians are still eating steak and lobster somewhere in DC.
Bush helped create this more than other presidents?
Ah yes, Mr "we don't need no stinking Glass-Steagall nor do derivatives need to be regulated" Gramm. He also came up with the Enron loophole.
The banks had been pushing for this for years..they finally found a sucker in Gramm. BTW..he went and got a cushy job at UBS right after that.
But I wouldn't put the blame only on him. One Congressman can't make laws by himself. He was a pawn of the bankers that pushed the changes but Congress approved them and the President signed them.
As Hillary says.."It takes a village" and we have had a village of idiots running this country for decades making bad decisions and playing favorites. Now we have to pay the price as the culmination of all this deregulation has put global economies on the brink of default.
Gramm, like Frank, had a lot of help on both sides, but none of this involved Dubya.
"a year after resigning, Rubin took a cushy job with the newly formed Citigroup as Chairman of the Executive Committee"
The left love to use Bush as a leverage! Barrack has spent more the any president in history!
He will also go down as the worst president in history! 90% OF VOTERS FOR BARRACK HAD NO CLUE THE GUY WAS A SOCILAIST!
Do you seriously believe a US president can declare war?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But Iraq was part of the "war on terror" and Saddam was part of the "evil doer's" clan. Al-Quaida was in Iraq remember? or was it just fellow Muslims? 
