# Bush's Deficit



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/07/25/george_bush_owns_the_deficit/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bush has now been OUT for nearly 3 years. It is now OBAMA'S Deficit Period. End Of Story.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

Bush and his supporters generated it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

So sorry, that has NOTHING to do with how many DOLLARS flowed into the Government, it has to do with the SPENDING.

C'mon, show me where the Bush Tax Cuts ( or the Kennedy or Reagan ones for that matter ) caused a revenue DROP.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Hey you guys - 

the DEMOCRATS were the MAJORITY in congress the last TWO years of Bush's administration. 

The president does NOT control spending - Congress does. Therefore....! 

I agree, spending was way up the last two years. Bush was fighting wars and had to compromise with a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS. But this deficit has to be laid at Obama's feet because if he wanted to control the deficit - HE would have vetoed all the spending. You can't possible think he - as intelligent as some say - that he didn't have any inkling what he was creating for the future.

:hammer:


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolf mom said:


> Hey you guys -
> 
> the DEMOCRATS were the MAJORITY in congress the last TWO years of Bush's administration.
> 
> ...


Exactly, and Obama even proposed a budget with no spending cuts and over a trillion if deficit just last April. He couldn't even get one Senate dem to vote for it. It failed 97-0. Do any of his supporters REALLY believe he has changed his mind on deficit spending in that short time?


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

The past is the past...do something about our future!


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

georger said:


> Bush and his supporters generated it.


And Obama said he was going to fix it. You're not saying he lied, are you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Who's is it?


----------



## DavisHillFarm (Sep 12, 2008)

The Libs will continue to use GWB as their fallguy. Why not grow a spine and admit the mistakes Owebamie has and continues making.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)




----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who's is it?


:hrm: By your chart, BFF - Wouldn't 2009 fiscal year (_the first long red line_) be President Bush's? That would make the _first blue line_ in "Bush Years" (showing surplus) fall under Clinton's watch and the _first deficit after surplus years_ starting under Bush. 

At least, that's the way CATO is explaining it. So how do you triple the deficit when the deficit was already tripled under Bush? :shrug:


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

georger said:


> Bush and his supporters generated it.


Oh please, Bush is not responsible for the earthquake and tsunami in Japan either, as much as you liberals would like to think so. Obama and your liberal buddies have run this country into debt so far over our heads we don't know if we will default or not. Let's have a dose of reality here. If you liberals would forget Bush for a while and open your eyes to what has been going on in Washington these last few years, maybe you could get some perspective and do something about it. Stop voting for people who think the voters have limitless pocket books. Our country is in crisis, harping on Bush won't fix the problem.

The Democrats have spent more than any Administration in U.S. history â and have done so without producing a budget â which is their legally mandated responsibility.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Don't forget these lunatics on the left consider tax cuts to be "spending". When you deal with reverse logic you can come up with all kinds of crazy claims.

Bush was responsible because he did raise actual spending and raised the debt....unfortunately Obama is spending like Bush on steroids. Very irresponsible president!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So *how do you triple the deficit *when the deficit was already tripled under Bush?


By spending 3 times as much

If you want to nit pick about Bushs's deficits, and blame them on tax cuts, explain why the deficit was going DOWN until the Demoncrats took over Congress


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

By blaming Bush, Obama is just showing his true Reagan Colors, after two years, old Raygun was still talking about what he inherited and that was the reason for the slow improvement, so, perhaps Obama needs to drop the Reagan schtick?


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

linn said:


> Oh please, Bush is not responsible for the earthquake and tsunami in Japan either.......


No, Bush is just responsible for consciously and deliberately initiating war in which your young people die for the benefit of oil companies taking the Iraqi oil and for blowing billions on the war in Iraq as well - while the people back at home lose their jobs.

If Bush had spent 1/5th of the energy and money from the Iraq war on reinvestment into home economy instead of blowing it on tanks, missiles, armies and bombs, your nation would be so much better off.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

georger said:


> No, Bush is just responsible for consciously and deliberately initiating war in which your young people die for the benefit of oil companies taking the Iraqi oil and for blowing billions on the war in Iraq as well - while the people back at home lose their jobs.
> 
> If Bush had spent 1/5th of the energy and money from the Iraq war on reinvestment into home economy instead of blowing it on tanks, missiles, armies and bombs, your nation would be so much better off.


I thought Canada participated in both those wars. Am I wrong? I understand participation in Iraq was minimal, but there was military support

Canada is doing well because of commodities. The US could do the same except for Obama and the out of control EPA.

And why resort to lying about oil? The US and US oil companies did not get any special treatment regarding Iraqi oil.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

The trouble with your scenario is that Reagan successfully brought us out of a recession. Obama and the liberal leaders have plunged this country into financial disaster.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

linn said:


> The trouble with your scenario is that Reagan successfully brought us out of a recession. Obama and the liberal leaders have plunged this country into financial disaster.


Give O 8 years adn we will be out of this situation.

Raygun led us "out" by turning us from a creditor nation into a borrower nation. 

Not Cool Ronnie. Not cool at all.

Oh and by *RAISING TAXES*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

I disagree, Reagan led us out of the recession by giving us tax cuts. Reagan called for a balanced budget when he entered office but he was fighting congress. Our economy improved dramatically under Reagan.
We can't afford to give Obama any more time, foreign markets indicate that they consider our national debt unsustainable.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

gideonprime said:


> Give O 8 years adn we will be out of this situation.
> 
> Raygun led us "out" by turning us from a creditor nation into a borrower nation.
> 
> ...


Why, you must be wrong. :angel:REAGAN:angel: would not have done such a thing.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you want to nit pick about Bushs's deficits...


That's what this thread is about. Keep up. :icecream:


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

National debt up 35 percent: Increase in the national debt during President Obama&#8217;s first 30 months in office, reaching $14.3 trillion at the beginning of July. Wake up!!!!


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

linn said:


> I disagree, Reagan led us out of the recession by giving us tax cuts. Reagan called for a balanced budget when he entered office but he was fighting congress. Our economy improved dramatically under Reagan.
> We can't afford to give Obama any more time, foreign markets indicate that they consider our national debt unsustainable.


It improved because he borrowed tons of money and then sank it into military spending here in the USA trying to outpace the already strugglling USSR.

Had he not borrowed so much and invested here at home there would have been no recovery on his watch.

Now O is basicaly trying the same thing and it's a sin.

:rotfl: 

You guys is so funny!:happy2:


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

linn said:


> National debt up 35 percent: Increase in the national debt during President Obamaâs first 30 months in office, reaching $14.3 trillion at the beginning of July. Wake up!!!!


Because he put GWBs off the books wars onto the books rather than secretly spending.

What a notion!


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Oh please, the bail outs didn't have anything to do with it? And Obama wants to keep borrowing. If he is not stopped we won't be able to chart the debt, we will run out of paper, no we won't be able to afford the paper. Obama Care will further increase spending where are the funds going to come from, more borrowing?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

linn said:


> Oh please, the bail outs didn't have anything to do with it? And Obama wants to keep borrowing. If he is not stopped we won't be able to chart the debt, we will run out of paper, no we won't be able to afford the paper. Obama Care will further increase spending where are the funds going to come from, more borrowing?


Morning Linn!

Well yes the bailouts are certainly part of it. However, I would call those (though I personally think too big to fail is BS) investment in the US economy.

Spending. True, but something that we as a nation should be ok with the govt spending money on . . .our own economy.

What is this Obamacare you speak of? It has an actual name that isn't partisan and immediately contentious.

It is no worse than Bush's prescrition drug plan which was done with Borrowed money.

Though I agree the reform we got re: HC is carp. Utter Carp. They did not go far enough (ie single payer) and at the same time . . . went too far. The whole thing should have been like ten sentences long and been meant to actually help those without insurance and dealt with the whole Pre-existing conditions situation.

Though that is of course JMO.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Maybe I should have called it Liberal Care, I don't think too many conservatives were for it. Republicans were outgunned in the congress when this was voted in. I agree that health care is out of sight. My own personal health policy keeps raising every year because I am over sixty, but I still think personal choice is better that forced health care in which the young and healthy are forced to buy more expensive insurance than they need or want. We already have Medicare and Medicaid. Let the people choose between competitive priced policies offered by competing companies.
If you don't like dealing with HMOs now just wait.
As far as the bail outs working, they have not, more business failing and more unempolyment. We were sold another bill of goods.
Sorry, I guess I am guilty of hijacking the thread.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

georger said:


> Bush and his supporters generated it.


Every President and Congress for decades has grown it. They're all to blame

Well, I take that back - we the voters are to blame because we keep believing them and re-electing them when they've proven all they do is spend like a drunken sailor.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

georger said:


> No, Bush is just responsible for consciously and deliberately initiating war in which your *young people die for the benefit of oil companies taking the Iraqi oil *and for blowing billions on the war in Iraq as well - while the people back at home lose their jobs.


:hysterical:ound::hysterical:ound:

WOW, some people just dont get it.

BTW I am against getting rid of tax deductions for the rich, if Obama has his way we will be much worst off then now.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

I really am truly amazed that their are so many cowards and sheep in Obamanation.. 

They refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions and continue to blame others..

It shows they have no back bone or morals, or values for that matter...

Is it any wonder that the Government doesn't follow the Constitution, when the sheep are so easily led..

I know I don't fight for the Constitution alone, but there are days where it seems that way!

Oh and if you see a wolf, don't worry, it's just there to take care of you.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

What is abundantly obvious is there is a debt problem of huge proportions, and the present administration is completely incapable of any concrete inroads in alleviating the problem.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

georger said:


> Bush and his supporters generated it.


Democrats were in charge of Congress


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> Give O 8 years adn we will be out of this situation.
> 
> Raygun led us "out" by turning us from a creditor nation into a borrower nation.
> 
> ...


Give O 8 years there will be nothing left to save


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

How Do I said:


> That's what this thread is about. Keep up. :icecream:


This thread is about making excuse for Obama


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> This thread is about making excuse for Obama


This thread is about Bush's war debt & tax cuts coming home to roost. All intelligent people knew it was going to happen sooner or later.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Nevada said:


> This thread is about Bush's war debt & tax cuts coming home to roost. All intelligent people knew it was going to happen sooner or later.


Considering the title I knew you'd show up sooner or later.

What I find interesting about all of this is the fact that when a Democrat decreases a deficit, they get the credit for it, as Clinton did (and should).

Now we've got a Democrat in office, and the deficits are going way up....so it's the GOP's/former President's fault.

There will always be SOME way to tie any bad thing to someone if you try hard enough. It would be nice if everyone would make an attempt to tie to both the creator AND the inheritor of the problem. Every time problems occur in this administration is it almost ALWAYS 'the previous administration's fault' somehow.

Yet you watch...I'll make a prediction that as SOON as the next Republican president is elected, events occurring ON his watch will be solely his fault somehow.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> This thread is about Bush's war debt & tax cuts coming home to roost. All intelligent people knew it was going to happen sooner or later.


Oh for heaven's sake tax cuts didn't cause this mess. It was the bailouts and the wild spending by the liberals in congress.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

linn said:


> Oh for heaven's sake tax cuts didn't cause this mess. It was the bailouts and the wild spending by the liberals in congress.


and two off the books wars. And a presciption drug plan that was unfunded.

And the current admins spending and bailing out as well.

There is plenty of blame to go around.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

linn said:


> Oh for heaven's sake tax cuts didn't cause this mess. It was the bailouts and the wild spending by the liberals in congress.




It was the real estate bubble that caused the recession. But we're not talking about the recession, we're talking about debt. Surely you realize that the money for the Iraq war wasn't going to be paid for with tax cuts.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

The real estate bubble was caused by the liberals forcing lending institutions to make loans to people who could not pay back these loans. Surely you realize that the bailouts to these institutions would increase government spending.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

I just heard Rep. Burton say that last year according to the Congression budget office, we had a 7% increase in tax revenues but the government increased spending by 11%, so no matter what tax raise the Democrats would get they would spend almost twice as much. There is no balance there.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

linn said:


> The real estate bubble was caused by the liberals forcing lending institutions to make loans to people who could not pay back these loans. Surely you realize that the bailouts to these institutions would increase government spending.


Sure, of course TARP increased government spending. But are you forgetting that Bush was the architect of TARP? Moreover, since the TARP plan was hatched in September 2008 it became Obama's problem to fund.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

It's all ronny Raygun's fault.

He tossed us off the cliff, we've been falling ever since.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

linn said:


> The real estate bubble was caused by the liberals forcing lending institutions to make loans to people who could not pay back these loans. Surely you realize that the bailouts to these institutions would increase government spending.


Linn seriously, research this with an open mind and you will find that is not the cause. It is easy to blame poor poeple who got suckered but they were a very small fraction of the problem.

Trying to lay the whole blame on them is just wrong. There is plenty of evidence to show that they got as abused and often more so than anyone else in this whole RE mess.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Bush had a deficit of 400 billion. We now have a deficit of over one trillion facing us for every single year and it may go to two trillion. I think you guys need to do some research. To keep blaming Bush for today's problems is not keeping an open mind is it?
Bush's deficits were high but nothing compared to what we have today. Obama has been in office for almost three years, so don't keep harping on Bush, it is bordering on the absurd.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

gideonprime said:


> Linn seriously, research this with an open mind and you will find that is not the cause. It is easy to blame poor poeple who got suckered but they were a very small fraction of the problem.
> 
> Trying to lay the whole blame on them is just wrong. There is plenty of evidence to show that they got as abused and often more so than anyone else in this whole RE mess.


Nobody is blaming poor people, we're blaming the Democrats that engineered the program.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

Actually, it all started with Grover Cleveland. Look it up.

Not really.

This is posted in the hope that while looking this up someone will realise that the fault is with the public that wanted the gov to give away money that it had no Constitutional basis to spend. That we gave up our liberty because it is easier to be a slave then to struggle for a living.
We long for the fleshpots of Egypt and it seems we are willing to go back to the chains of debt rather than make hard choices. It will take 40 years wandering and hardship before the entitlement crowd are gone, if we have the courage to start.

Sad how history repeats.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

linn said:


> Bush had a deficit of 400 billion.


It was more like $800 billion.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnis...ese-are-the-true-deficits-bush-800b-obama-14t


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

No, I certainly was not blaming the poor, that was twisting what I stated. Poor people were suckered in by corrupt liberal organizations such as ACORN. This organization put pressure on the lending institutes to make loans to these people and the liberal Democrats backed ACORN up. Gideonprime, I thought we had gotten past those kind of statements. I have never indicated that I want to blame the poor or downtrodden. Liberal organizations and government do not encourage these people to get real help, but want them to depend on the system. This keeps these organizations in power. 
"Give a man a fish and feed him for one day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It was more like $800 billion.
> 
> http://thehill.com/opinion/columnis...ese-are-the-true-deficits-bush-800b-obama-14t


Wrong again, I checked - 482 billion. Nice try Buck. I see you are still at it at this forum.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/29/nation/na-deficit29


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

linn said:


> "Give a man a fish and feed him for one day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."


Not when the big corps pollute the water


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Maybe you are living too close to the big corps.LOL We have ponds and lakes here that the big corps haven't polluted yet. Of course the Corps of Engineers just got through flooding out hundreds of homes.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

linn said:


> Wrong again, I checked - 482 billion. Nice try Buck. I see you are still at it at this forum.


But as the article pointed out, that didn't count TARP and other recession-mitigating expenditures. It only counted budgeted expenditures.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

linn said:


> Bush had a deficit of 400 billion. We now have a deficit of over one trillion facing us for every single year and it may go to two trillion. I think you guys need to do some research. To keep blaming Bush for today's problems is not keeping an open mind is it?
> Bush's deficits were high but nothing compared to what we have today. Obama has been in office for almost three years, so don't keep harping on Bush, it is bordering on the absurd.


Again Linn, when you keep two wars off the books your number look much much better than they really are.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Gideon, Obama is still waging war and started a new one with Libya. He still wants to borrow more. Remember his promises concerning Iraq and Afghanistan? Now how many wars do we have going now, or are you having a convenient memory lapse? Obama doesn't look too good does he?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I remember a lot of us being concerned about Bush's spending.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9PbMwQLPdM[/ame]

Of course conservatives didn't care, at least as long as they still got their tax cuts.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

How about let us add the cost of the wars since Obama took over, including the one he started in Libya, and tack that on to his deficit?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

China is getting the oil. Maybe if we had gone to Iraq for oil, we wouldn't be in this mess.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But are you forgetting that Bush was the architect of TARP?


And BO took time off his campaign to make sure he could vote FOR it, as did the majority of the Demoncratically controlled Congress


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And BO took time off his campaign to make sure he could vote FOR it, as did the majority of the Demoncratically controlled Congress


Are you criticizing democrats for going along with Bush?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And BO took time off his campaign to make sure he could vote FOR it, as did the majority of the Demoncratically controlled Congress


And the last two years of Bush's administration was controlled by Dem's my goodness how the left forgets minor details like that. Or should I say How Convenient they forget things like that.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Kung said:


> Every time problems occur in this administration is it almost ALWAYS 'the previous administration's fault' somehow.


I'm telling you, he is taking a page out of Reagan's playbook.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Are you criticizing democrats for going along with Bush?


Nope. For going along with Bush then complaining about the results.:hysterical:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

gideonprime said:


> Because he put GWBs off the books wars
> 
> You might have missed it, but Obama was elected president a while back. There used to be a sign on the desk in the Oval Office, saying "The Buck Stops Here." I bet that sign is hidden away or thrown away now.
> 
> ...


Imagine people letting go of their obsession with Bush. Now THAT is a notion. Funny, but I bet if things had turned around and Obama wasn't facing the problems he is now people would say it was ALL his doing. Since he hasn't been able to deliver on much of what he promised, it MUST be Bush's fault. Everything else is, right?:hammer:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

FourDeuce said:


> Nope. For going along with Bush then complaining about the results.:hysterical:


What result was that?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

joseph97297 said:


> I'm telling you, he is taking a page out of Reagan's playbook.


I remember President Reagan and let me tell you, Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> What result was that?


So you give Obama a pass and blame it all on Bush;
Too bad you don't care as much about the present and future as you do about the past.
Most people are trying to learn from the past and fix the future, but you and Obama care about nothing but passing the blame.
Good for you, you are just what Obamanation needs, a willing slave.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

*I remember President Reagan and let me tell you, Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan. 
*

How so?

"Inherits" a horrible economic situation, still blames the previous administration two years into it, spends money and raises the debt at astronomical rates, has a gun-running/weapon incident, bombs Libya, geesh, looks awful similar to me

And even though Reagan had 10 straight months of Unemployment over 10, during which he was sure to point out that it was the previous administrations fault, while Obama has only 3, during which he was sure to point out that it was the previous administrations fault, but Obama's low numbers are dragging out a lot longer than Regan.

Now granted, Reagan seem to have a better relationship with the people, apparently, those folks back then were not either interested in how the gov't worked or were just so dim they had no clue? Difficult to pinpoint, after all, it seems that a lot of those folks who still have old Ronnie on a pedestal, seem to be crying that Obama's actions are the death toll to America. 

If the debt is such a big issue, and I for one think it is, as a balanced budget should be imperative and required, then wouldn't you think that the one person on point when the debt increased the largest would be the villain?  Well, think again I suppose.

Sure, sure, the congress controls the debt, the congress, the congress, but to be fair, if you give the congress the blame for the debt and such, then they should get the kudos for the booming economy and such, but that doesn't seem to be the case, after all, "Reagan's" tax cuts, "Reagan's Trickle Down", etc etc,.

Perhaps it was just an issue that back then, people respected the office, and were not so venomous towards the individual.

Now granted, Obama, as far as I have heard, hasn't called in an Astrolger yet, but you never know.

So, I will offer this, let's take the tax rates back to Reagan's mid-term level. After all, those were the good ole days, nothing wrong with a tax rate of 50% is it, or is it only ok, under Reagan?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

joseph97297 said:


> *I remember President Reagan and let me tell you, Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.
> *
> 
> How so?
> ...


The differences between Obama and Reagan are many, and quite profound. Reagan did raise taxes during his term, but there was an agreement with the Democrat Congress that they would give him $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Reagan kept his end of the bargain, but true to form, the Democrats did not. Needless to say, the Republicans have a little historical perspective on their side in not accepting promises of future spending cuts from the current crowd of Dems in Congress.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

If the repubs on this site agreed to accept the charge of hypocracy would that let us move to another topic?
Personally, I admit that although I was not impressed by everything Bush did, I did not scrutinize him enough. I did not realize what he was doing and how bad it was.
There. Now the scales have fallen from my eyes and I can see the errors of my ways.

.


.


.

Mr Obama is doing worse. Taking a bad situation and making it worse. Deliberately. He has done all the wrong x4 and none of the right. Even when Mr Obama identifies a problem he makes it worse. A long drawn out war is bad, so he keeps them and starts more.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Are you criticizing democrats for going along with Bush?


Are you trying to pretend Bush did it alone?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And even though Reagan had 10 straight months of *Unemployment over 10*, during which he was sure to point out that it was the previous administrations fault, while *Obama has only 3*


LOL

You're kidding, right?

The real numbers are higher and no end in sight


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Are you trying to pretend Bush did it alone?


So it's the democrats' fault for not restraining Bush.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> *The differences between Obama and Reagan are many, and quite profound.* Reagan did raise taxes during his term, but there was an agreement with the Democrat Congress that they would give him $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Reagan kept his end of the bargain, but true to form, the Democrats did not. Needless to say, the Republicans have a little historical perspective on their side in not accepting promises of future spending cuts from the current crowd of Dems in Congress.




Well??..........


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

How Do I said:


> Well??..........


Wake up and go study history for yourself.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> Wake up and go study history for yourself.


Right.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

How Do I said:


> Right.


If what you already know about history doesn't give you enough information to know the differences, my repeating it to you won't increase your ability to comprehend.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

I'm just really enjoying this thread and so glad I started it ;-)


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

So, no takers on the proposal to take tax rates back to Reagan's era?


I agree, spending has to be curtailed, but if the tax rate then was ok, since those were the most recent good ole days, no reason we can't go back to them is there?

Well, also needs to be said that the republicans have controlled Congress, yet we didn't see the proposed cuts in spending did we, so I guess they can't really take the high road on that one.

So, please, can't we go back to the tax rates of the "good ole days"?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> If what you already know about history doesn't give you enough information to know the differences, my repeating it to you won't increase your ability to comprehend.


The problem is that your history doesn't match what really happened. We can't even agree on what's happened the past 5 years, let alone acknowledge the existence of the Reagan recession (which you would surely blame on Carter, even if you admitted it).

It's no wonder that conservatives believe we can actually live on tax cuts. They have no recollection that tax cuts don't work.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Are you criticizing democrats for going along with Bush?


Yes, and all the republicans too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So it's the democrats' fault for not restraining Bush.


Bush couldn't spend one penny without them.

If you think Bush did something wrong, they are also guilty of the same things.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Bush couldn't spend one penny without them.
> 
> If you think Bush did something wrong, they are also guilty of the same things.


Then what's your concern with Obama? Just have republicans in the house never send spending bills to Obama. Problem solved.


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

gideonprime said:


> and two off the books wars. And a presciption drug plan that was unfunded.
> 
> And the current admins spending and bailing out as well.
> 
> There is plenty of blame to go around.


What about Obama's non-war in Libya? That's costing a billion a day according to press sources. Oh but wait -- we can't count that can we?


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

pcwerk said:


> I'm just really enjoying this thread and so glad I started it ;-)


Seems like it was just a reason to :stirpot: to me. Kinda like starting a thread saying "Bush killed women and children with his facist principles". Sure to spark debate, but not really accomplishing anything.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"What about Obama's non-war in Libya? That's costing a billion a day according to press sources. Oh but wait -- we can't count that can we?"

Only if you can think of some way to claim it was caused by Bush. :grumble::happy2:


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

FourDeuce said:


> "What about Obama's non-war in Libya? That's costing a billion a day according to press sources. Oh but wait -- we can't count that can we?"
> 
> Only if you can think of some way to claim it was caused by Bush. :grumble::happy2:


give 'em time -- they'll FIND a way, believe me. Everything from the tsunami in Japan to the gunman in the Giffords shooting to the tornado in Joplin is Bush's fault, remember? It's just easier for them, because that way they never have to accept responsibility for anything THEY do. It's easier to distract, deflect, and deny.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Then what's your concern with Obama? Just have republicans in the house never send spending bills to Obama. Problem solved.


Sounds like a pretty good plan to me. In fact, I think that might already be in the works to some degree. Of course, because of baseline budgeting the budget grows by about 7% each year automatically. 

Speaking of budgets, it's been well over 800 days since the Democrats have even proposed a budget. Why is that?


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

For anyone on this thread to accuse conservatives of hypocrisy is ludicrous, especially after statements made by those very same people. Bush was not perfect, neither was Reagan. But this country enjoyed almost two decades of prosperity because of the policies of Ronald Reagan. Go ahead and come up with some ridiculous statements, it won't change the fact that Reagan was one of the most loved presidents of all time by the general public. Reagan had a liberal congress to deal with and he took his ideas to the people on public broadcasts. He had the support of the public and back then that meant something. At least enough to pressure the congress to go along with the calls they received supporting Reagan's program.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Here's what a GOP insider has to say.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/re...ed-us-economy-2010-08-10?reflink=MW_news_stmp


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

David Stockman is still smarting from the spanking he received during the Reagan administration. Here is another link exposing Stockman as a closet liberal and a liar. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/socia...may-unemployed-jobless_n_870786_91758323.html
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/liberal-misconceptions/



Here is another link that says Stockman was being investigated for fraud.
"A former top budget official in the Reagan White House is a target of a criminal investigation into possible financial fraud at an auto parts company he headed before it collapsed into bankruptcy, a federal official told The Associated Press. 

David Stockman, who rose to prominence as budget director under President Reagan, is the former chairman and CEO of Michigan-based Collins & Aikman Corp.
Federal investigators and prosecutors are preparing a case against Stockman and other corporate officers from Collins & Aikman and expect to soon present the findings to a grand jury in New York City, the official said."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752390/posts

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/19/sec-stockman-idUSN1921195120100419

Stockman is one of those people who just keep hanging on. To do so he is willing to say anything and do anything. You could probably post a thousand nasties from disgruntled employees. Stockman has been spouting off and who cares, he is a fraud. As many slams as you could post, I could come up with people who praised and loved Reagan and I bet I wouldn't have to dig nearly as deep.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

linn said:


> For anyone on this thread to accuse conservatives of hypocrisy is ludicrous, especially after statements made by those very same people. Bush was not perfect, neither was Reagan. But this country enjoyed almost two decades of prosperity because of the policies of Ronald Reagan. Go ahead and come up with some ridiculous statements, it won't change the fact that Reagan was one of the most loved presidents of all time by the general public. Reagan had a liberal congress to deal with and he took his ideas to the people on public broadcasts. He had the support of the public and back then that meant something. At least enough to pressure the congress to go along with the calls they received supporting Reagan's program.


How old were you when Reagan was in office?


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

I am sixty three now Nevada, you can do the math. I can tell you this, my husband started his own successful business and we bought our first farm during the Reagan administration. Many people did the same. After all of our kids were in school, I worked and put myself through college. We have paid our share of taxes because we were given the incentive to work hard and get ahead. Some of that was the training we received from our parents, but much of it was because of the tax cuts during Reagan's administration.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

georger said:


> If Bush had spent 1/5th of the energy and money from the Iraq war on reinvestment into home economy instead of blowing it on tanks, missiles, armies and bombs, your nation would be so much better off.


I think a lot of the money spent on those tanks, missiles, bombs and armies goes directly into our nations home economy in the form of paychecks and manufacturing jobs.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

linn said:


> I am sixty three now Nevada, you can do the math.


Then you remember the Reagan recession.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

I remember better than you do, Regan had to deal with a recession left by the Carter administration


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

georger said:


> No, Bush is just responsible for consciously and deliberately initiating war in which your young people die for the benefit of oil companies taking the Iraqi oil and for blowing billions on the war in Iraq as well - while the people back at home lose their jobs.
> 
> If Bush had spent 1/5th of the energy and money from the Iraq war on reinvestment into home economy instead of blowing it on tanks, missiles, armies and bombs, your nation would be so much better off.


How many wars are we in now? Just sayin'. Everyone of Obama's supporters were talking about how he was going to bring the troops home. Well, now we have even more troops in the battlefields. As for the Iraqi oil, do you have any links showing where the US has gotten any of it?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

gideonprime said:


> and two off the books wars. And a presciption drug plan that was unfunded.
> 
> And the current admins spending and bailing out as well.
> 
> There is plenty of blame to go around.


You like mentioning "two off the books wars", but what about the illegal wars the mighty "O" has gotten us into?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Sure, of course TARP increased government spending. But are you forgetting that Bush was the architect of TARP? Moreover, since the TARP plan was hatched in September 2008 it became Obama's problem to fund.


I didn't support Bush's TARP plan, no more than I supported Obama's cash for clunkers and all the other ridiculous things he's done.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

http://business.financialpost.com/2011/07/27/how-the-u-s-debt-pile-became-a-mountain/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> I didn't support Bush's TARP plan, no more than I supported Obama's cash for clunkers and all the other ridiculous things he's done.


OK. But how does that change the fact that it was Bush's plan?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

linn said:


> I remember better than you do, Regan had to deal with a recession left by the Carter administration


Okay, here's how it went down. Reagan promised great things through trickle-down economics. Okay fine, he got his chance. Reagan was elected, as we all looked forward to good times.

In 4 years trickle-down economics had not delivered as promised. Reagan explained that it was always intended to be a 6 year plan, so it needed 2 more years to kick-in. Reagan was reelected, as we all looked forward to good times.

In 8 years trickle-down economics had not delivered as promised. GHWB was running for president, and got a political hand from Reagan. Reagan explained that his plan would have worked after 6 years but democrats in congress did things that delayed the program. Reagan promised that success was right around the corner, and we would all enjoy it if we gave GHWB a chance. GHWB was elected, as we all looked forward to good times.

In 12 years trickle-down economics still had not delivered as promised. GHWB's reelection campaign promises for continued trickle-down economics were not compelling. It was clear that it was a failed policy. The country could be patient no longer. GHWB was not reelected.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

linn said:


> I remember better than you do, Regan had to deal with a recession left by the Carter administration


Which Reagan was reminding folks of that fact, two years after being in office, much like Obama has, yet Obama gets lambasted for it??

I'm not saying he wasn't a good President, after all, anyone that could have a 50% tax rate and have folks think he was one of the greatest of all times, gotta be pulling some wool somewhere.

So, would you have a problem with taking the tax rates back to Reagan's era?

So, Congress went along with Ronnie's plan, since that is what the public wanted? So the tax increases, were Reagan's ideas? Well, if the Congress went along with Reagan's plans, then isn't Reagan to blame for the debt that we incurred?

You say:

"Reagan had a liberal congress to deal with and he took his ideas to the people on public broadcasts. He had the support of the public and back then that meant something. At least enough *to pressure the congress to go along* with the calls they received supporting Reagan's program."

So there we have it, finally someone willing to place the increased Fed debt at Reagan's feet, after all, he only tripled it.....


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

I did no such thing, you liberals are always trying to put words in someone's mouth. Ronald Reagan got his tax cuts and the Star Wars program passed because that was what the public wanted. Star Wars plan was meant to shield the United States and its allies from a massive Soviet missile attack but it accomplished much more. Reagan's defense plan helped bring the USSR down because they couldn't keep pace. During the first Gulf War we were all mighty glad for Reagan's Star Wars program. Why don't you give Reagan and Bush bashing a rest and concentrate on holding your liberal president and party to the promises they made. All I hear is whining about the past and as far as I can tell you are not concerned that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank and company have run this country into a debt that we will not pay off in our lifetime. There has been no budget for almost three years. That should tell you something.

"The annual increase in real (inflation-adjusted) federal spending declined from 4.0 percent during the Carter administration to 2.5 percent during the Reagan administration, despite a record peacetime increase in real defense spending.
The top marginal tax rate on individual income was reduced from 70 percent to 28 percent. The corporate income tax rate was reduced from 48 percent to 34 percent. The individual tax brackets were indexed for inflation. And most of the poor were exempted from the individual income tax.
Real GDP per working-age adult, which had increased at only a 0.8 annual rate during the Carter administration, increased at a 1.8 percent rate during the Reagan administration. The increase in productivity growth was even higher: output per hour in the business sector, which had been roughly constant in the Carter years, increased at a 1.4 percent rate in the Reagan years. Productivity in the manufacturing sector increased at a 3.8 percent annual rate, a record for peacetime. 
Most other economic conditions also improved. The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10.4 percent in 1980 to 4.2 percent in 1988."

Source: The Concise Enclyclopedia of Economics
Reaganomics
by William A. Niskanen


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

linn said:


> I did no such thing, you liberals are always trying to put words in someone's mouth. Ronald Reagan got his tax cuts and the Star Wars program passed because that was what the public wanted. Star Wars plan was meant to shield the United States and its allies from a massive Soviet missile attack but it accomplished much more. Reagan's defense plan helped bring the USSR down because they couldn't keep pace. During the first Gulf War we were all mighty glad for Reagan's Star Wars program. Why don't you give Reagan and Bush bashing a rest and concentrate on holding your liberal president and party to the promises they made.


Honestly, I don't know how history has become so kind to Reagan. I can tell you right now that I was not a fan of Star Wars, and in the end it was shown to not actually do what it was supposed to do. I guess it put some people to work though, and I'm not against that.

His presidency somehow escaped disgrace from the Iran-Contra scandal. That scandal was, by far, the worst abuse of power and breech of law I've ever heard of by any presidency in the history of this country. It was in an entirely different league above Watergate, yet Reagan somehow got away with it. It included selling arms to the enemy, involvement a war against congress' wishes, making deals with terrorists to keep American hostages captive, gun running, drug running, money laundering, destruction of government documents, lying under oath, and even undermining the efforts of a sitting president. I was amazed that he wasn't removed from office in disgrace.

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

One thing I'll say about him though, that silver-tongued devil could charm the pants off of a cobra. He started talking and seniors would purr, even when he was cutting their benefits. They didn't even notice. Some even believed that he was increasing their benefits, even though he was saying otherwise. They just couldn't believe that a smooth talker like Reagan could do them wrong.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

You cannot deny the statistics concerning Reagan. Even economics experts are giving him credit for bringing the country out of a recession caused by the Democrats. He also lowered unemployment and strengthened our defense program all the while lowering taxes. 
Reagan was at least credible unlike Slick Willie and Hillary the Hun who made our country the laughing stock of the world with their exploits.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

linn said:


> You cannot deny the statistics concerning Reagan. Even economics experts are giving him credit for bringing the country out of a recession caused by the Democrats. He also lowered unemployment and strengthened our defense program all the while lowering taxes.


While defense was strengthened under Reagan, which in turn helped the employment picture somewhat, it was done at the expense of government spending and debt. Isn't that what conservatives oppose?


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Excuse me, I guess yoyu didn't read how the economy improved under Reagan. The congress was controlled by the Democrats during Reagans terms in office. It was their congressional budget.


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Then you remember the Reagan recession.


Some of us are even old enough to remember Carter's Reign Of Terror.


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

Nevada said:


> *One thing I'll say about him though, that silver-tongued devil could charm the pants off of a cobra. He started talking and seniors would purr, even when he was cutting their benefits. They didn't even notice. Some even believed that he was increasing their benefits, even though he was saying otherwise.* They just couldn't believe that a smooth talker like Reagan could do them wrong.


Reagan? Are you kidding?

I thought you were talking about OBAMA!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

linn said:


> Excuse me, I guess yoyu didn't read how the economy improved under Reagan. The congress was controlled by the Democrats during Reagans terms in office. It was their congressional budget.


Congress went along with it, but you already gave Reagan credit for expanding the military. Are you now giving credit to the democrats for expanding the military?

But in either case, there is no denying that expanding the military increased government spending and debt.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmerpat said:


> Reagan? Are you kidding?
> 
> I thought you were talking about OBAMA!


As a speaker Reagan was much smoother.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

linn said:


> Excuse me, I guess yoyu didn't read how the economy improved under Reagan. The congress was controlled by the Democrats during Reagans terms in office. It was their congressional budget.


So Reagan gets credit for the improving economy, but you try to blame the Congress for the budget or debt? Sorry, you can not have it both ways. If Reagan gets credit for the economy improving, along with unemployment, etc, then he should get the blame for the debt increase, or else, give Congress the blame for the debt, as well as the credit for the economy and such.

And yes, I agree with you that Obama needs to be held accountable, but it is funny that he is pulling plays straight out of Reagan's playbook (i.e. blaming the previous administration for continuous years) and gets lambasted for it.

So if Reagan got his tax cuts cause the people wanted them, how did he get his tax raises? Did the people want them as well?


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Why not, you have been playing the blame game all along. What's good for the liberal is good for the conservative.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Congress went along with it, but you already gave Reagan credit for expanding the military. Are you now giving credit to the democrats for expanding the military?
> 
> But in either case, there is no denying that expanding the military increased government spending and debt.


oh cmon Nevada.... Reagans expanded military did NOT increase our spending and debt. Perhaps he spent more than Carter.... but nobody to date has come close to spending what we spent in 1946. Reagan spent no more than the Kennedy/Johnson administrations... probably less if you adjust for inflation. 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Congress went along with it, but you already gave Reagan credit for expanding the military. Are you now giving credit to the democrats for expanding the military?
> 
> But in either case, there is no denying that expanding the military increased government spending and debt.


The voters are the ones that I give credit for strengthening our defenses and tax cuts right along with Reagan. If the voters hadn't put pressure on congress than Reagan couldn't have gotten these bills passed. Most of the liberal congress fought Reagan every step of the way. It is amazing that he acheived as much as he did with the Democrats in power in congress.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

farmerpat said:


> Some of us are even old enough to remember Carter's Reign Of Terror.


During the presidential campaign I remember a liberal slamming Reagan and asking "If we wanted an actor as president." The overwhelming answer was "Why not, we have a clown (Carter) as president right now."
The liberals keep harping on the debt under Reagan so we won't discuss the present national debt and so they don't have to acknowledge everything that Reagan accomplished. You guys have become a stuck record, repeating the same old tune over and over.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> oh cmon Nevada.... Reagans expanded military did NOT increase our spending and debt.http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html


How can the military be expanded without increasing spending? In the face of tax cuts, how could the expanded military be funded without increasing debt?


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

Nevada said:


> As a speaker Reagan was much smoother.


Yeah, Obama needs a teleprompter and someone to pull his marionette strings. He soooooo reminds me of Howdy Doody.......


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> How can the military be expanded without increasing spending? In the face of tax cuts, how could the expanded military be funded without increasing debt?


Did you not open the link I posted? there are the numbers... in very plain easy to read format. Reagan expanded our military capability without increasing the debt simply by increasing revenues...... which he accomplished with lower tax rates..... I know, I know, you arent having any of that either but it works, it worked when Kennedy lowered the rates, worked when Reagan did it, and it worked when Bush did it too. lower tax rates have a habit if increasing revenues because they increase overall economic growth.


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

linn said:


> During the presidential campaign I remember a liberal slamming Reagan and asking "If we wanted an actor as president." The overwhelming answer was "Why not, we have a clown (Carter) as president right now."
> The liberals keep harping on the debt under Reagan so we won't discuss the present national debt and so they don't have to acknowledge everything that Reagan accomplished. You guys have become a stuck record, repeating the same old tune over and over.


Yup, and I've wondered why to this day that history hasn't been much much harsher on Carter. He constantly seems to be given a pass on things.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Did you not open the link I posted? there are the numbers... in very plain easy to read format. Reagan expanded our military capability without increasing the debt simply by increasing revenues...... which he accomplished with lower tax rates..... I know, I know, you aren't having any of that either but it works, it worked when Kennedy lowered the rates, worked when Reagan did it, and it worked when Bush did it too. lower tax rates have a habit if increasing revenues because they increase overall economic growth.


You bet it did work. But the left just wants to gloss over that part and rant on other things that had no importance in the over all big picture. Simple as that.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

linn said:


> Why not, you have been playing the blame game all along. What's good for the liberal is good for the conservative.


Me, sorry to tell you, I have always said that Obama has as much blame as anyone in regards to the problems.

But, I think you have it backwards, what is good for the conservative is good for the liberal.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Did you not open the link I posted? there are the numbers... in very plain easy to read format. Reagan expanded our military capability without increasing the debt simply by increasing revenues...... which he accomplished with lower tax rates.....


Yes, the old "we paid for it with tax cuts" logic. Never happened, never will.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

I remember Reagan's reign of terror. He started this whole process of dismantling
the working class by firing the PATCO workers! He did see a tremendous growth in
paper assets but it was the beginning of the end for workers. I saw a clip from a
"Roseanne" show and interview w/ Roseanne Barr (interview here if your interested; 
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/25/pioneering_comedian_roseanne_barr_on_her )
and it was from around 1988 and it was exactly how it was.
A politician comes to knock on Roseanne's door to drum up support and he says, "I'm
going door to door to see all my constituents" and she says, "Thats awfully inefficient,
you ought to just come down to the unemployment office and see everyone at once!" ;-)


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

pcwerk said:


> I remember Reagan's reign of terror. He started this whole process of dismantling
> the working class by firing the PATCO workers! He did see a tremendous growth in
> paper assets but it was the beginning of the end for workers. I saw a clip from a
> "Roseanne" show and interview w/ Roseanne Barr (interview here if your interested;
> ...


The fact that you don't like Reagan makes me feel even better about his record. Thank you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Never happened, never will.


You can deny it all you like but reality is lower taxes mean higher revenues.

Until the housing bubble burst, the deficits were going down under Bush.

But don't hesitate to *show some figures *to back up your claims


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Until the housing bubble burst, the deficits were going down under Bush.


That was the silver lining of the bubble. Was it worth it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Was it worth it?


That's irrelevant since Bush didn't cause it or have any control over it.
The point is revenues went up and deficits went down with his tax cuts in place.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

I guess ACORN, a crooked liberal organization supported by Obama thought so. ACORN was responsible for coercing lending institutions into giving loans that should never have been. This caused the housing bubble to burst. 
"For years, the George W. Bush and his Administration warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He also put forward plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush&#8217;s call more than five years ago to implement reform. Over the years, the President&#8217;s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac."

http://www.luminara.com/?tag=harry-reid


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

pcwerk said:


> I remember Reagan's reign of terrorQUOTE]
> 
> He was BRUTAL. I couldn't believe he fired PATCO just because they broke the law by striking. Then he had the nerve to call ketchup a vegetable. That brought tears to my eyes and cost me many a night of sleep. Yep, he was right up there with other butchers in history. That's why he was only elected one term. I still shudder when I think about it. Right up there with the Holocaust.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's irrelevant since Bush didn't cause it or have any control over it.


I believe that if Bush ordered Greenspan to regulate derivative securities on or before 2005 that the bubble would have stayed under control. Bush was either ignorant about the seriousness of the bubble, or he knew but let it fester anyway. Either way, I don't see how he escapes responsibility.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I believe that if Bush ordered Greenspan to regulate derivative securities on or before 2005 that the bubble would have stayed under control. Bush was either ignorant about the seriousness of the bubble, or he knew but let it fester anyway. Either way, I don't see how he escapes responsibility.


I find it amusing that you think Bush had the authority to regulate derivative securities owned and traded primarily by FOREIGN bankers and financial institutions. Bush was a United States president.... with no authority over banks and financial institutions located in foreign countries. You also seem to ignore the fact that Bush... and McCain proposed legislation to bring US financial interests under control as early as 2003 but the dems in congress werent having any... thanks to the advise from Barney Franks, and a then junior senator Obama.... who were both closely tied to ACORN and both had taken huge campaign contributions from them.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> The fact that you don't like Reagan makes me feel even better about his record. Thank you.


Reagan was nothing but a puppet, a hired Hollywood actor for the Republican party. I remember those days VERY well indeed, there was so much mockery because Reagan was without his beloved Bongo and his wife Nancy was into the Voodoo and reading Chicken bones for the future. 

And let's face it - as long as the Republicans wants to protect the wealthy from the real world they invest in, including the huge war machinery for what they hope are massive profit margins - the Republicans will ALWAYS be the cause of incredible insustainable, crushing DEBT among Americans - to other countries - for war spending.

That's all the Republicans are good for - increasing war spending and increasing fear - and denial of any wrongdoing.

And that is why you are now saddled now and for future generations with such a stupid amount of debt that it will take your grand children's grandchildren to pay it all off.

The Republicans are pretty shameful and unpatriotic to the ideals of true democracy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

georger said:


> Reagan was nothing but a puppet, a hired Hollywood actor for the Republican party. I remember those days VERY well indeed, there was so much mockery because Reagan was without his beloved Bongo and his wife Nancy was into the Voodoo and reading Chicken bones for the future.
> 
> And let's face it - as long as the Republicans wants to protect the wealthy from the real world they invest in, including the huge war machinery for what they hope are massive profit margins - the Republicans will ALWAYS be the cause of incredible insustainable, crushing DEBT among Americans - to other countries - for war spending.
> 
> ...


When our Constitution authorizes military expenditures in 75 percent of authorized powers, and we only spend 25 percent of our budget on military........ and our Constitution "PROHIBITS" any expenditures on social programs.... yet we spend 2/3s of our budget on them...... Methinks its the socialist spending that is running up our debt load, not military. This insane overspending is why the founding fathers were wise enough to create a representative republic... and shyed away from democracy to begin with.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find it amusing that you think Bush had the authority to regulate derivative securities owned and traded primarily by FOREIGN bankers and financial institutions. Bush was a United States president.... with no authority over banks and financial institutions located in foreign countries.


I don't care what foreign banks did.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Yes, the old "we paid for it with tax cuts" logic. Never happened, never will.


Thats great rhetoric... but the numbers show otherwise.... revenues have indeed increased with each of the tax rate cuts that I named. Google is your friend, using it could easily lower your rate of embarrassment. 
For example, had you done a simple google search, you would have known that revenues increased from 94 billion in 1961 to 153 billion in 1968 thanks to the Kennedy tax rate cuts. You would also have known that revenues collected during the 80s (Reagans years) increased by nearly double that of the previous decade.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't care what foreign banks did.


You should care.... they were heavily involved with the derivative securities market which caused (according to you) the great collapse.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You should care.... they were heavily involved with the derivative securities market which caused (according to you) the great collapse.


Again, if Bush would have ordered Greenspan to regulate derivative securities the recession would never have happened.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Again, if Bush would have ordered Greenspan to regulate derivative securities the recession would never have happened.


I think that was congress's job.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Again, *if Bush *would have ordered Greenspan to regulate derivative securities the recession would never have happened.


I guess you missed the link about Bush calling for regulation, and Congress ignoring it.

Just the same old Bush Blaming as always

It's tiresome

http://www.luminara.com/?tag=harry-reid




> In fact,* it was Congress *that flatly rejected President Bush&#8217;s call more than five years ago to implement reform.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

georger said:


> Reagan was nothing but a puppet, a hired Hollywood actor for the Republican party. I remember those days VERY well indeed, there was so much mockery because Reagan was without his beloved Bongo and his wife Nancy was into the Voodoo and reading Chicken bones for the future.
> 
> And let's face it - as long as the Republicans wants to protect the wealthy from the real world they invest in, including the huge war machinery for what they hope are massive profit margins - the Republicans will ALWAYS be the cause of incredible insustainable, crushing DEBT among Americans - to other countries - for war spending.
> 
> ...


Again, I think you need to look at your own country and how it is doing. No one forced Canada to go into Iraq with the US.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Tax cuts are supposed to create jobs, More people working creates more revenue going to the goverment.
but by the looks of it there are ways to stop the tax cuts from working.

I am not sure the Bush tax cuts did work so well. It was more the housing boom that made every one so much money during the Bush years.
If every one hadn't got so greedy the housing bubble would not have burst so violently.
What every one needs to realize though is the goverment will raise the rich guys taxes, find out that isn't enough and then will go after the middle class for some more. And all because we have a class of poverty stricken people who don't know any better than to live off every one else.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> The fact that you don't like Reagan makes me feel even better about his record. Thank you.


Actually, I thought I made it clear many times b4 but I almost LOVED Reagan! He was w/o doubt the funniest president there ever was and he certainly was the "Great Communicator". Unfortunately, he did what ALL presidents do and he got in there and started listening to the monied interests that control things and disregarded what was best for the nation...


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

poppy said:


> pcwerk said:
> 
> 
> > I remember Reagan's reign of terrorQUOTE]
> ...


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

SquashNut said:


> Again, I think you need to look at your own country and how it is doing. No one forced Canada to go into Iraq with the US.


what happens in the US definitely influences Canada, and vice versa. when
the Canadians had the backbone to get their National Healthcare system
going the main opponents they had to fight was US corporations!


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> When our Constitution authorizes military expenditures in 75 percent of authorized powers, and we only spend 25 percent of our budget on military........ and our Constitution "PROHIBITS" any expenditures on social programs.... yet we spend 2/3s of our budget on them...... Methinks its the socialist spending that is running up our debt load, not military. This insane overspending is why the founding fathers were wise enough to create a representative republic... and shyed away from democracy to begin with.



Actually the Constitution doesn't prohibit spending on social programs, in a few minor instances it does authorize it. The post office could be considered our first "social network." 
I agree that our spending is out of hand, but I prefer that if the constitution be brought into the debate, the truth be told.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats great rhetoric... but the numbers show otherwise.... revenues have indeed increased with each of the tax rate cuts that I named. Google is your friend, using it could easily lower your rate of embarrassment.
> For example, had you done a simple google search, you would have known that revenues increased from 94 billion in 1961 to 153 billion in 1968 thanks to the Kennedy tax rate cuts. You would also have known that revenues collected during the 80s (Reagans years) increased by nearly double that of the previous decade.


Yes, google is your friend............

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

Revenue has on average increased throughout history - tax cuts or no. (This last decade, we are running a little behind) If we use the voodoo economic theory, what explains the increases for the other periods?
Natural economic and population growth perhaps?
Also take note of the decreases (though short term) and exactly when they occurred.

The "blame game" may now continue..........

"It wasn't HIS fault..........No. it was HIS fault"


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Energy Rebel said:


> Actually the Constitution doesn't prohibit spending on social programs, in a few minor instances it does authorize it. The post office could be considered our first "social network."
> I agree that our spending is out of hand, but I prefer that if the constitution be brought into the debate, the truth be told.


Then let us have a look at what the Constitution says shall we? I will start here, and then you feel free to bring forth the section of the Constitution that you believe delegates the powers to the federal government to run their social programs. 

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Again, if Bush would have ordered Greenspan to regulate derivative securities the recession would never have happened.


And again.... If Bush had the power to regulate the worlds economics........ but he didnt have that power..... he was a US president.... not the worlds king.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

SquashNut said:


> Again, I think you need to look at your own country and how it is doing. No one forced Canada to go into Iraq with the US.


How I agree. When it comes to countries, take the plank out of your eye buddy and stop worrying about the splinter in our eye.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

Whatever you say.....it's your financial grave.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/debt-limit/


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

The U. S. has come out of bad situations before, without, may I add, any help or advice from North of the Border. We will weather this. Your comments and criticisms of our country and leaders isn't lending anything to the discussion. I really haven't read anything that is helpful or encouraging in your comments. Usually a neighbor is supportive, but I don't see anything like that in your attitude, just criticism.
I guess we will have to start a thread about everything that is wrong with your country, culture and leaders. That should be fun for you.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

joseph97297 said:


> So, no takers on the proposal to take tax rates back to Reagan's era?
> 
> 
> I agree, spending has to be curtailed, but if the tax rate then was ok, since those were the most recent good ole days, no reason we can't go back to them is there?
> ...


Then lets take spending back to the same rate! Oh that's right liberals only want the money and not the responsibility of spending it correctly. 

Yea I know it won't happen.. So your tax hike won't happen either!


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Liberals in Washington think we can just keep printing money, but our money is not worth much right now. We will soon just be wasting ink, paper and other printing costs for worthless currency.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Then let us have a look at what the Constitution says shall we? I will start here, and then you feel free to bring forth the section of the Constitution that you believe delegates the powers to the federal government to run their social programs.
> 
> "Amendment X
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."



Yes, I'm familiar with the 10th amendment. 
Please note that it does not prohibit spending on "social programs" only dividing the powers of the Fed and the powers of the states.

I already gave you one reference Article I section 8 [7].
There are several more in section 8.
Perhaps copy and pasting will help...............




U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8


Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

*The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;*

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

*To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;*

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

*To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And*

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.






There ya go.
Now you can proceed with telling me that what I just copied from the Constitution, does not actually apply to anything you were really talking about ie. food stamps, welfare et al.
I understand.
But my reference to PO remains as fact.


Now, if you wanna discuss how these social programs have gotten out of control, I have to agree with you.
But if you want to discuss the authority of the Constitution, I have to stick with the words written.
If you want to use Rush-type "code words" to describe something specific, then spell it out, but to make the blanket statement that the constitution prohibits something it clearly authorizes, is incorrect.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Energy Rebel said:


> Yes, I'm familiar with the 10th amendment.
> Please note that it does not prohibit spending on "social programs" only dividing the powers of the Fed and the powers of the states.


Of course the tenth amendment prohibits the spending of money on social programs... or anything else that the feds are not empowered to do. I am glad that you are familiar with section eight of article one.... which lists those things the fed actually has power over, and yer right.... food stamps, welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, public housing and all the others aint on the list!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > Again, if Bush would have ordered Greenspan to regulate derivative securities the recession would never have happened.
> ...


You think wrong. It is the Fed's responsibility to regulate the banking industry. Since the president appoints the Fed chief, he servers at the pleasure of the president. Greenspan was regulating banks exactly as Bush wanted them to be regulated.

The Fed can create banking regulations at the drop of a hat, while it normally takes years for congress to create a new law. That's why we have regulators.

It was Bush and the Fed's job to regulate the banking industry. The real estate bubble was clearly a failure in regulation.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course the tenth amendment prohibits the spending of money on social programs... or anything else that the feds are not empowered to do. I am glad that you are familiar with section eight of article one.... which lists those things the fed actually has power over, and yer right.... food stamps, welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, public housing and all the others aint on the list!


One more time, the 10th Amd. prohibits nothing, other than overstepping federal authority. It simply establishes the states' right to do what is not enumerated in the Constitution.
There is no prohibition on federal social programs, I outlined in bold print, several of them.

Now as to the "code words" that's what I figured.
But as I already said the word "social" has a definition and it doesn't necessarily mean "food stamps."
Post offices and post roads were our first "social" network.
"Needful buildings " might include public libraries - another "social" place.
If people would realize that Marx didn't actually invent the word "social" maybe they could let it pass their lips more often.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The real estate bubble was clearly a failure in regulation.


Do you agree with this?



> The fact that we are here today to debate *raising America&#8217;s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure*. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can&#8217;t pay its own bills.
> 
> It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government&#8217;s reckless fiscal policies. &#8230; *Increasing America&#8217;s debt weakens us* domestically and internationally.
> 
> Leadership means that &#8216;the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you agree with this?


Yes, the amount of debt we have is an obvious failure in leadership. But how does that relate to banking regulation?


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You think wrong. It is the Fed's responsibility to regulate the banking industry. Since the president appoints the Fed chief, he servers at the pleasure of the president. Greenspan was regulating banks exactly as Bush wanted them to be regulated.
> 
> The Fed can create banking regulations at the drop of a hat, while it normally takes years for congress to create a new law. That's why we have regulators.
> 
> It was Bush and the Fed's job to regulate the banking industry. The real estate bubble was clearly a failure in regulation.


Excuse me, but it is the job of congress to oversee banking regulations. As I posted previously, the Bush administration kept trying to get congress to do something about the lending crisis. Reid and Pelosi ignored him. 

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5602454_congressional-job-description.html


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

linn said:


> Excuse me, but it is the job of congress to oversee banking regulations.http://www.ehow.com/facts_5602454_congressional-job-description.html


Congress has some oversight responsibility over the Fed, but it's the Fed's responsibility to license and regulate banks.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You think wrong. It is the Fed's responsibility to regulate the banking industry. Since the president appoints the Fed chief, he servers at the pleasure of the president. Greenspan was regulating banks exactly as Bush wanted them to be regulated.
> 
> The Fed can create banking regulations at the drop of a hat, while it normally takes years for congress to create a new law. That's why we have regulators.
> 
> It was Bush and the Fed's job to regulate the banking industry. The real estate bubble was clearly a failure in regulation.


Then Clinton shouldn't have repealed the Glass/Steagle act.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Congress has some oversight responsibility over the Fed, but it's the Fed's responsibility to license and regulate banks.


Then why did the congress just enact all the bills to regulate the banks?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> Then why did the congress just enact all the bills to regulate the banks?


A number of reasons.

1. Creating the new law may have taken years, where the regulation could have been created at the drop of a hat.
2. The Fed chief at the time (Greenspan) testified before committee that regulating derivative securities would be a mistake. Congress is usually inclined to go along with regulators' recommendations, since the don't want to upset the overall regulation strategy.
3. In the face of Greenspan's testimony, there was a real question whether republicans and blue dog democrats would have let a new law like that pass.

As an added note, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG5ag1BmB1A"]Greenspan now admits[/ame] that he made a mistake by not regulating derivative securities.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

beowoulf90 said:


> Then lets take spending back to the same rate! Oh that's right liberals only want the money and not the responsibility of spending it correctly.
> 
> Yea I know it won't happen.. So your tax hike won't happen either!


I am all for that, so we need to cut spending by 5 or 6 percent to be in line with that spending rate.

Cool, but as I said in the other thread, look how far you'd need to take taxes up to while only decreasing spending by 6 percent at the most.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

joseph97297 said:


> I am all for that, so we need to cut spending by 5 or 6 percent to be in line with that spending rate.
> 
> Cool, but as I said in the other thread, look how far you'd need to take taxes up to while only decreasing spending by 6 percent at the most.


It won't happen! The liberals in the White House and Congress (be they Dem or Rep) won't do it..

Because we all know the Government isn't to be trusted in most cases, especially with money..

They would find some unworthy project to channel money into so they themselves can become richer and gain political power..

In plain English,

They don't give a fat rats behind about the Country or the people...

It's all about their power and greed..

I'll stop now! I would hate to spout off about the scum that populates Washington DC


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> Then Clinton shouldn't have repealed the Glass/Steagle act.


The real estate bubble may have still happened. Banks were finding ways around Glass/Steagle.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Bush was either ignorant about the seriousness of the bubble, or he knew but let it fester anyway. Either way, I don't see how he escapes responsibility.


Tons of people were ignorant on the seriousness of it; proving that is easy.

Most people don't deny that he is responsible. My problem is when you've implied in the past that he is essentially TOTALLY responsible.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Nevada said:


> You think wrong. It is the Fed's responsibility to regulate the banking industry.


You contradict yourself with only two sentences. 

You're giving a nice, easy, and wrong pat answer. It is by far not just 'the Fed' who regulates the banking industry. It is the Fed (actually not just 'the Fed' but the board of governors on the FRB), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, and others (such as the National Credit Union Agency).


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Nevada said:


> The real estate bubble may have still happened. Banks were finding ways around Glass/Steagle.


Bush didn't make them find ways around Glass Steagle or all the other acts set in play by Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan and Carter.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Kung said:


> Tons of people were ignorant on the seriousness of it; proving that is easy.


Since I was living in ground zero of the mortgage crisis (Las Vegas) my perspective of the bubble may have magnified, but I still found it difficult to believe that everyone, everyplace didn't understand the seriousness of the bubble.

I've believed all along that people who weren't seeing how dangerous the bubble was were just being stubborn for political reasons. After all, it did seem that right-leaning people were less aware of the bubble than those on the left. But I could be completely mistaken about that.

Did those people really believe they were looking at genuine prosperity?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

yes, but with Glass /steagle in place they would have been breaking the law.
he took the criminality out of the fraud..


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Since I was living in ground zero of the mortgage crisis (Las Vegas) my perspective of the bubble may have magnified, but I still found it difficult to believe that everyone, everyplace didn't understand the seriousness of the bubble.
> 
> I've believed all along that people who weren't seeing how dangerous the bubble was were just being stubborn for political reasons. After all, it did seem that right-leaning people were less aware of the bubble than those on the left. But I could be completely mistaken about that.
> 
> Did those people really believe they were looking at genuine prosperity?


I saw the problem every time i got my county tax accesors notice. They said my place was worth an out rages amount and this was sending our house taxes up and up. If you wanted to sell your house, you would have thought that was fabulous. But we just want to live here and felt the tax rate was out of control. We knew it couldn't last.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> he took the criminality out of the fraud..


Glass-Steagle restricted the way regular banks invested depositor money. Basically it kept regular banks out of the speculative investment business. 
Glass-Steagle made a clear distinction between investment banks and regular banks.

As we all know, the way banks trade assets has become complicated. These extremely sophisticated asset trades clouded the line between investing and speculating. That was the opening that regular banks used to get around Glass-Steagle.

What regular banks were doing may have gotten around Glass-Steagle, but it wasn't fraud. They were just doing things with depositor money that they really weren't supposed to do (i.e., gambling with depositor money).


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Glass-Steagle restricted the way regular banks invested depositor money. Basically it kept regular banks out of the speculative investment business.
> Glass-Steagle made a clear distinction between investment banks and regular banks.
> 
> As we all know, the ways banks trade assets has become complicated. These extremely sophisticated asset trades clouded the line between investing and speculating. That was the opening that regular banks used to get around Glass-Steagle.
> ...


Doesn't matter what you call it. It wasn't right.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> Doesn't matter what you call it. It wasn't right.


I agree. Regular banks were far too cavalier with depositor money than they should have been. But it's still legal today. The financial reform bill should have addressed that, but it's watered down to the point where it's ineffective.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

Nevada said:


> You think wrong. It is the Fed's responsibility to regulate the banking industry. Since the president appoints the Fed chief, he servers at the pleasure of the president. Greenspan was regulating banks exactly as Bush wanted them to be regulated.
> 
> The Fed can create banking regulations at the drop of a hat, while it normally takes years for congress to create a new law. That's why we have regulators.
> 
> It was Bush and the Fed's job to regulate the banking industry. The real estate bubble was clearly a failure in regulation.


The real state bubble was clearly caused by the Community Reinvestment Act and the ideological determination to move people into housing they couln't afford regardless of the impact on mortgage holders or real estate. The attempts to blame it on lack of regulation are truly pathetic and the last refuge of the willfully blind leftist.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I agree. Regular banks were far too cavalier with depositor money than they should have been. But it's still legal today. The financial reform bill should have addressed that, but it's watered down to the point where it's ineffective.


Well, this is what I am seeing and most of it is only specualtion. But they did some thing with those SS bonds. And I am not sure if knowing they commited fraud is going to help those who participated. 
maybe they found a way to play them or their value on the stock market and when the economy crashed the value went up in smoke.
I mean we have an administration who wants to put a value on paper for air. So people can trade it on the stock market. Why not any and every thing else they can get a hold of.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

linn said:


> The U. S. has come out of bad situations before, without, may I add, any help or advice from North of the Border. We will weather this. Your comments and criticisms of our country and leaders isn't lending anything to the discussion. I really haven't read anything that is helpful or encouraging in your comments. Usually a neighbor is supportive, but I don't see anything like that in your attitude, just criticism.
> I guess we will have to start a thread about everything that is wrong with your country, culture and leaders. That should be fun for you.


Ha ha. Cool Idea!


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

joseph97297 said:


> I am all for that, so we need to cut spending by 5 or 6 percent to be in line with that spending rate.
> 
> Cool, but as I said in the other thread, look how far you'd need to take taxes up to while only decreasing spending by 6 percent at the most.


Cut spending by only 5-6 percent??? No wonder the left cannot control spending, and do not see the spending problem.

Plus, which tax rates, or which year are you picking? The rates at the beginning of the term of Reagan with all the deductions that come with them, or at the end of his term which were lower but with FAR fewer deductions? The federal budget spending in 1981 or 1988? Neither comes even remotely close to the amount of money we are currently spending. The fed spent around 600-700 billion per year, in early 80's and 1.1 trillion in 1988. How much are we going to spend this year????? If you use the first years tax rates/spending levels when the federal government spent 600 billion plus 6 percent is roughly 636 billion, which is paltry compared to current levels of spending, so maybe you are talking about the tax rates/spending at the end of Reagan's term which was 1.1 trillion, and adding 6 percent would be only 1.166 trillion which still is basically nowhere close to how much we are spending now..... Man, lefties and numbers simply do not mesh......

We have had higher taxes, and lower taxes, but the spending ALWAYS is higher, NEVER lower. Spending is our problem, not the tax rates.

The best example is seeing where your money goes if you donate it to the cause of reducing the deficit. It gets SPENT in the general fund. THERE is the problem, no matter how much you put in, it gets spent, and then some. Until that is addressed, no amount of income is going to solve anything, especially with the left crying we need to spend EVEN MORE on anything and everything, to solve it. The left whines that we needed to SPEND 10 times the amount on the stimulus to make it work, SPEND more on just about everything, to make it work. HOW ABOUT MAKING IT WORK WITH WHAT WE HAVE, for a change.....

You could put the tax rate at 100 percent, and the left would spend 110 percent, and still whine that we are not spending enough....... No wonder Obama had no budget for his first years in office, and still does not have anything other than continuing resolutions, etc.....


----------

