Huge Republican Tax Increase

[TriggerMan]

Originally Posted by muggsy

Bush failed to move congress, because if you will recall, both houses of congress were controlled by the democrats in the last two years of his presidency. The two years that immediately preceded the economic collapse. But then, of course, Obama inherited the rotten economy from bush. You still want to discuss spin?

His watch. His ineffectiveness. Republicans fail to know we need them to compromise and learn to help govern. The Tea Party types will learn at their first re-election that voters won't stand for gridlock.

The housing debacle is but one element of several that got all of us in a much bigger mess. Bush spent like a democrat but lowered taxes like a republican. A bad formula. Spin it however you want.

[Chief Joseph]

Originally Posted by TriggerMan

From the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers. Bush did push early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but he failed to move Congress. After the Enron scandal, Bush backed and signed the aggressively regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans and quit. Plus, let's face it, the meltdown happened on Bush's watch.

and , from Wikipedia:

"The economic policy of the George W. Bush administration was a combination of tax cuts, expenditures for fighting two wars, and a free-market ideology intended to de-emphasize the role of government in the private sector. He advocated the ownership society, premised on the concepts of individual accountability, less government, and the owning of property.
During his first term (2001–2005), he sought and obtained Congressional approval for tax cuts: the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. These acts decreased all tax rates, reduced the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty", and were set to expire in 2011.
The last two years of his presidency were characterized by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis, which resulted in dramatic government intervention to bailout damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy.
The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP),[1] due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Budgeted spending under President Bush averaged 19.9% of GDP, similar to his predecessor President Bill Clinton, although tax receipts were lower at 17.9% versus 19.1%.[2] "

It's really pathetic that "deregulation" is how the left loves to blame the housing collapse. THAT was brought to you from the start by the 2nd worst president ever, now that we've seen nobama in action. carters fair housing program. Reagan slowed it, CLINTOON ballooned it. In 2003 W made an effort to slow it and in 05 mccain tried with the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. I remember vividly that scumbag barney frank standing up and saying that the loans were SOUND, backed by his dem buddies. And if you look somewhere other than wikipedia, you might even see after the collapse the loser was STILL trying to push subprime loans. This "deregulation" was an ORDER from government to reduce the requirements for loans so minorities who couldn't qualify could buy homes. The government REQUIRED them to do it, and it would be backed by the government. The cause of the collapse completely rests on socialist government trying to social engineer an outcome. Once they screwed with the free market it became the mess, and yet they are STILL doing it and unfortunately too many Americans are still buying into it. Unlike our current loser in chief, at least W. was constrained by the other branches of government, nobama doesn't feel the need to follow the Constitution. It's amazing that government tells the private sector to loan, they do, the expected result occurs and leftists sit back and blame those who were only doing what they were told to do.

[Chief Joseph]

Originally Posted by TriggerMan

His watch. His ineffectiveness. Republicans fail to know we need them to compromise and learn to help govern. The Tea Party types will learn at their first re-election that voters won't stand for gridlock.

The housing debacle is but one element of several that got all of us in a much bigger mess. Bush spent like a democrat but lowered taxes like a republican. A bad formula. Spin it however you want.

Ya, we're getting a great lesson in "compromise" from loser in chief, is he even aware there are other branches of government? Spent like a democRAT? I guess you're unaware of how much this current joker has spent? And how much more he plans on spending? He gets another term we're doomed. The cbo has already "corrected" mr liar in chiefs nobamacare costs.

[tv_racin_fan]

I'm still trying to figure out when the Republicans had 60 seats in the senate... I can not recall such a time in my lifetime.

[popgoestheweasel]

Originally Posted by JFootin

Blue or red, it doesn't matter much. The professional polititians are all corrupt, misguided and/or profoundly stupid. But Obama is neither. The link posted yesterday, "Barack Obama's RULES FOR REVOLUTION", puts everything in clear view. Woe be unto us.

I think the truth is beginning to set me free. My view is now clearer after reading the Horowitz article linking Obama with every low-down, rotten human being (or group) one could think of. Alinsky, Capone, Castro, the Clinton's, Dillinger, Hitler, Lenin, John Lennon, Michelle O, Communists/Socialists, etc...(even Bush?). Toward the end of the article, I was beginning to wonder why Charles Manson was forgotten as Obama's best friend. But, not to worry, the author didn't disappoint. Finally, ole Charlie was mentioned. So, I'm just about ready to drink the Kool-Aid and join the overwhelming majority of KahrTalk members whose #1 priority is to beat Obama (oops), I mean Obummer. Speaking of Kool-Aid, how did Horowitz forget naming Obummer and Jim Jones in the same sentence???

Staying on topic, we must nominate a true conservative Republican...only the most conservative of the bunch. The question remains, WHICH of the Republican hopefuls is 'that man'? Does it really matter? I think NOT!!! Supporting a republican candidate lacking true conservative principles won't be difficult come November. Mitt can be our man...as long as we beat OBUMMER. Like many others, we'll forget what we stand for and pretend he's a true conservative. Think about it, the only knock against Mitt is that stupid story of his sick dog, Seamus, strapped atop the Romney-mobile. I'll bet y'all 10,000 measly dollars it won't get him beat. Besides, FOX news will continue to report the dog (and the brown liquid) was hosed off so the issue is irrelevant. Hey, FOX can spin anything (even RomneyCare) with a little help from Uncle Newtie!

Let's all do our part to make sure Obummer is a one-term President. After all, Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, made this objective the #1 priority of the 2008-2010 Republican Congress. We must not fail!!! NOTE: I'm sure WE were a priority as well. So...let's join the Republican establishment, set aside those all-important principles, swallow hard, and make Mitt YOUR man.

[muggsy]

Originally Posted by popgoestheweasel

I think the truth is beginning to set me free. My view is now clearer after reading the Horowitz article linking Obama with every low-down, rotten human being (or group) one could think of. Alinsky, Capone, Castro, the Clinton's, Dillinger, Hitler, Lenin, John Lennon, Michelle O, Communists/Socialists, etc...(even Bush?). Toward the end of the article, I was beginning to wonder why Charles Manson was forgotten as Obama's best friend. But, not to worry, the author didn't disappoint. Finally, ole Charlie was mentioned. So, I'm just about ready to drink the Kool-Aid and join the overwhelming majority of KahrTalk members whose #1 priority is to beat Obama (oops), I mean Obummer. Speaking of Kool-Aid, how did Horowitz forget naming Obummer and Jim Jones in the same sentence???

Staying on topic, we must nominate a true conservative Republican...only the most conservative of the bunch. The question remains, WHICH of the Republican hopefuls is 'that man'? Does it really matter? I think NOT!!! Supporting a republican candidate lacking true conservative principles won't be difficult come November. Mitt can be our man...as long as we beat OBUMMER. Like many others, we'll forget what we stand for and pretend he's a true conservative. Think about it, the only knock against Mitt is that stupid story of his sick dog, Seamus, strapped atop the Romney-mobile. I'll bet y'all 10,000 measly dollars it won't get him beat. Besides, FOX news will continue to report the dog (and the brown liquid) was hosed off so the issue is irrelevant. Hey, FOX can spin anything (even RomneyCare) with a little help from Uncle Newtie!

Let's all do our part to make sure Obummer is a one-term President. After all, Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, made this objective the #1 priority of the 2008-2010 Republican Congress. We must not fail!!! NOTE: I'm sure WE were a priority as well. So...let's join the Republican establishment, set aside those all-important principles, swallow hard, and make Mitt YOUR man.

Even Charlie Manson had his limits on with whom he would associate, Weasel. Apparently that's not the case with you. Enjoy the balance of Obama's one term as president. The great failed experiment.

[JFootin]

Yeah, we'll just have to hold our noses and vote for Nomorebama.

[muggsy]

Originally Posted by JFootin

Yeah, we'll just have to hold our noses and vote for Nomorebama.

Nomorebama has my vote.

[muggsy]

Originally Posted by tv_racin_fan

I'm still trying to figure out when the Republicans had 60 seats in the senate... I can not recall such a time in my lifetime.

It's possible that the next election could produce a sixty seat majority in the Senate for the Republicans. The socialist democrat party has really screwed up the country and it shows at the pump. People vote their pocketbooks.

[popgoestheweasel]

Originally Posted by muggsy

It's possible that the next election could produce a sixty seat majority in the Senate for the Republicans. The socialist democrat party has really screwed up the country and it shows at the pump. People vote their pocketbooks.

People vote their pocketbooks and will undoubtedly choose Mitt. After all, who relates better with the poor folk than a guy making $10,000 bets who calls $374,000 "not very much". It's comforting to know Mitt isn't worried about the poor. He's got 'their' back!