Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-17-2011, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,492 posts, read 26,592,930 times
Reputation: 8971

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
More meaningless babble with no facts and just the typical liberal rambling.

Actually Bush tried OVER A DOZEN TIMES to regulate the mortgage industry.. Democrats stopped them EVERY SINGLE TIME.. They even had congressional hearings over it..

YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

Supporting home ownership didnt cause the bubble, federal guaranteeing bad mortgages DID..

omg. Federal law was DEREGULATED ON MORTGAGE MARKET SINCE LATE 80'S. Just an FYI. fannie, Freddie, Ginnie Mae (GMAC) , Sallie Mae(student loans) , HUD...many of these existed since Nixon. Or did you not take financial markets 202 in College.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-17-2011, 02:41 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,101,577 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Regarding the statement "Bush's tax cuts increased revenue," that's false too.

Here’s what real federal revenue looked like from 1992 - 2008:
The Bush tax cuts didnt get passed until 2003.. What happened to revenues?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2011, 02:42 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,101,577 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey View Post
omg. Federal law was DEREGULATED ON MORTGAGE MARKET SINCE LATE 80'S. Just an FYI. fannie, Freddie, Ginnie Mae (GMAC) , Sallie Mae(student loans) , HUD...many of these existed since Nixon. Or did you not take financial markets 202 in College.
And? According to you it took 30 years for "deregulation" to cause a housing collapse? Do you want to respond to the Congressional hearings, ridiculing Bush for wanting to reign in the mortgages that were going to collapse?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2011, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,201,401 times
Reputation: 1378
I guess you are NEVER going to provide that link to that "Obama lost 9 million jobs" claim you made. Why do I know you won't provide it? Because it isn't true. But do keep looking, LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90 View Post
Are you saying he created jobs as he promised us then?

You know on record he has lost 5 million jobs. Google is your friend but I assume you will choose to ignore the facts.

Add another 4 million who have been displaced and cannot find a job or those who had to take huge pay cuts at another job to even feed their family.




Give me a link to the 5 million NEW high paying jobs he promised us.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2011, 04:01 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,300,771 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The Bush tax cuts didnt get passed until 2003.. What happened to revenues?
This is what happened in terms of tax revune during the Bush 43 Admiinsistarion:

All figures are trillions of dollars
2001 - $1.9911
2002 - $1.8531
2003 - $1.7823
2004 - $1.8801
2005 - $2.1536
2006 - $2.4069
2007 - $2.5680
2008 - $2.5240
Increase from beginning to end of term: 26.56%

The 26.56% tax revenue increase during his term was THE LOWEST OF ANY TWO TERM PRSIDENT ON THE 59 YEARS!

This puts the tax reveune growth of the Bush 43 administation in context of to other two term Presidents

Increases in tax revenue
Harry Truman
1945 - $45.2 billion
1952 - $66.2 billion
Increase - 46.46%

Dwight D. Eisenhower
1953 - $69.6 billion
1960 - $92.5 billion
Increase - 32.90%

John F. Kennedy - Lyndon B. Johnson
1961 - $94.4 billion
1968 - $153 biliion
Increase - 62.76%

Richard M. Nixon - Gerald R. Ford
1969 - $186.9 billion
1976 - $298.1 billion
Increase - 59.50%

Ronald Reagan
1981 - $599.3 billion
1988 - $909.2 billion
Increase - 51.2%

Bill Clinton
1993 - $1.1543 trillion
2000 - $2.0252 trillion
Increase - 75.43%


In fact in comparing two term Presidents since World II the Biush 43 administration sets quite a few marks.

The Economic Legacy of George W. Bush Jr.

LOWEST at increasing tax revenue of any post World War II two term President

LOWEST at average year over year quarterly GDP growth of any post World War II two term President

LOWEST at job creation of any post World War II two term President

HIGHEST in the growth percentage of Americans below the poverty level of any two term President since figures stated being kept in 1959.

HIGHEST in the growth of Americans on Food Stamps of any two term President since the records started being kept in 1969.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2011, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,492 posts, read 26,592,930 times
Reputation: 8971
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And? According to you it took 30 years for "deregulation" to cause a housing collapse? Do you want to respond to the Congressional hearings, ridiculing Bush for wanting to reign in the mortgages that were going to collapse?
Why are you so defensive?. I dont need to respond to Congressional hearings regarding Bush. Im not concerned about defending him.

Statutory laws go back quite a long way. Start reading. History goes back more than ten years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2011, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,395 posts, read 22,523,731 times
Reputation: 11134
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueyedCat View Post
I have no problem with individuals on Food Stamps that really need it. I have a problem with the ones that abuse the system. There needs to be a reform on Welfare/Foodstamps. Our country could .probably pay it's dept with what it's giving out to the ones that abuse the system
Just what dept. are you talking about paying or did you mean debt??????

Foodstamp disbursements are miniscule compared to our national debt.....and you just meant abusers......same with welfare....so the amount would be but a fraction of the total "system".

Stop Corporate subsidies(welfare)......that may save a bit more money and mainly just hurt those poor CEO's receiving food stamps; so they can survive their bad and greedy business decisions that nearly destroyed our economy. .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2011, 05:53 PM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,705,136 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
most of the stimulus was tax cuts, that were reversed due to other tax increases, and borrowed money.. AND WHERE DID THE BORROWED MONEY COME FROM? How about the $300B for FOOD STAMPS.. How about the billions upon billions spent to bailout the states and local governments for police? Where did they get that from? How about all of that road construction and spending for "shovel ready" projects? You see the part you liberals fail to understand is that if you MOVE when a project was going to be done, for example, from 2013, to 2010, the NET INCREASE in jobs is ZERO.. If the project took 100 employees in 2013, it would have taken the same number of employees in 2010. All you did was change the date, and then pretend you stimulated something that you didnt.. Even the CBO said the long term effects of the stimulus is negative..

Short term thinking, leaving problems for future presidents to take care of.. yep.. Democrats....

You pretending the money wasnt borrowed is just wrong..
And there are now reports saying that the stimulus package actually COST jobs
Power Line - A Verdict on Obama's "Stimulus" Plan
Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs
I finally understand the root of your issue with all this. It's based on the simple fact that you don't really understand the purpose of stimulus.

Stimulus is designed to create jobs during a period when there are few private sector jobs being created. When you talk about a project being done in 2013 with the same amount of people, what you fail to understand is that doing the project in 2009, when there are few other jobs available, helps provide a bridge of employment for people who otherwise would probably not be offered jobs. The same is true for local governments. Yes, in 2013 their tax-base will probably be fine, but in 2009-10 they do not have the revenue to pay their bills so they need stimulus to get through.

The other feature of that type of borrowed funding is that it keeps money flowing through the system that has a trickle-down effect until the private sector can pick up the slack again. So, there's a huge benefit to borrowing that money during a time of need rather than waiting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2011, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,947,200 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The Bush tax cuts didnt get passed until 2003.. What happened to revenues?
Don't you get tired of posting factually incorrect material? There were two Bush tax-cuts, one in 2001 and the other in 2003.
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2011, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,947,200 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
More meaningless babble with no facts and just the typical liberal rambling.

Actually Bush tried OVER A DOZEN TIMES to regulate the mortgage industry.. Democrats stopped them EVERY SINGLE TIME.. They even had congressional hearings over it..

YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

Supporting home ownership didnt cause the bubble, federal guaranteeing bad mortgages DID..
I hate to tell you this but YouTube videos aren't credible sources. Like movies, they can be edited to say and show anything the producer wants. They can lack context and edit out the parts not consistent with the desired narrative.

If you don't believe me, you can find the piano playing cat and the small plane that loses a wing at 1,000 ft. but manages to land safely, as evidence of credible looking videos that are not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:11 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top