Bob F wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Well, during the GWB time, we had about 5% unemployment. I believe
that the spike in unemployment was due to the BHO tax increases,
reckless spending, and many new regulations and other unfunded
mandates.

And which way was it going when Bush left office? Tell us also
exactly the policies you would propose to solve the problem in the
last 2 years. Please remember that it was the Rupub policies that
started the fall. How many changes have Repubs proposed in those
plolicies if they take over?

Remember, during the last two years of the Bush administration, the
Democrats controlled Congress. Coincidence? Or cause-and-effect.

Jeff Thies wrote:

Now, if you want to talk about jobs, just how many were added during
W's 8 years, not many. In fact he came within a few thousand of
having a net loss his first term and overall the figure is under
$19K/month. Pathetic considering population growth needs 150K to 200K
month. Do a little looking into exactly what the unemployment rate is and
how it is
measured and you'll see it is a figure with little meaning.

Yep. Toward the end of the Bush administration, not many jobs were added.

Well, yeah, it's kinda hard to ADD jobs when everybody who wants one is
working! Remember, under Bush, unemployment was down around the 4% level.
Classically, unemployment below 6% is called "full employment."


The savings rate for almost all of the W tenure was negative. The
housing market was artificially inflated by lax policies and no
oversite over lending. All this has to be corrected and it will take
a long time. Financial meltdowns like this always lead to long
recoveries.

Agreed.


There are only two kinds of Republicans, Millionaires and fools.
Which do you fall in?


There's at least one other group - far, far larger than either of the two
you mention. That group consistis of people who aspire to be millionaires.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:16:28 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Good point. During the first six years of the Bush administration
unemployment averaged 5%, the stock market topped 14,000, there were
24 consecutive months of economic growth. All this in spite of two
wars, Katrina, and 9/11.

By that logic, an airliner that crashed when it came in for landing
had a pretty good flight considering that nothing went wrong until
right at the end.

It was a good flight until the terrorists burst into the cockpit and drove
the plane into the ditch. And yeah, I'd give the keys to the plane back to
the proven pilots - but I'd strengthen the cockpit door.

Acvtually, the plane was in an uncontrollable oscillation virtually
from the moment of takeoff, but all the instruments were "fudged" to
make it look like straight and level flight, and the controls all
crossed up. When the captain who had "fudged" the instruments and
screwed with the controls handed the controls over to the new captain
for landing, all hell broke loose. Trying to lock onto the ILS when
flying upside-down at VNE with aelerons, flaps, rudders and elevators
dissabled and/or the controls crossed up made for an "interesting
ride"

The definition of a good landing?
One you can walk away from
Definition of an excellent landing?
One where the plane survives to fly another day.

I'd say it was an AWFULL flight, and a landing that could have been a
lot worse.

Too bad Obama wasn't a "captain Sully" who could pull off a flawless
river ditching. Sully had had a WHOLE LOT more experience.

Given the circumstances, I'd say he did pretty darn good.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:44:09 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

A. Baum wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:38:06 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that
business is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay
him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more
of this change? I hope not.

Skyrocketing unemployment. Government takeover of health, auto and
banking. Unfathomable debit and trade deficits. All in two years.

Guess what? It's not going bad at nearly the rate it was two years ago. Pretty
good, considering how long they spent screwing everything up before that.


Nobody wants to blame Bwany Fwank?

I see his attorneys have jumped ship and he will be representing
himself, soon - a fool for a client.

Anyone notice financial reform left out Fannie and Freddie?

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:15:21 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
message ...
Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that
business is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay
him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this
the change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for
more of this change? I hope not.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZ1j...eature=related


Explain with great precision exactly what you would've done
differently from Obama if you'd been the president to follow George
W. Bush. Failure to explain your plan in your next message will be an
admission that you are drunk.

Gosh! We'd be here all night. I'll tackle just one: tax cuts.

The Congress has known for TEN YEARS that the tax cuts are going to
expire on January 1st. Neither they nor the president have done squat
about it.
This uncertainty is driving the business community nuts. Businesses
HATE the unknown. Without knowing what their tax burden will be next
year, they can't plan. They can't invest. They can't hire.

Sure. Massive give aways to the ultra rich are somehow necessary to save out
economy and balance the budget. That fantasy has been repeated ad-nasium. It is
rediculous.

Democrats wanted to push through the tax cuts for the masses. The repubs blocked
them. Like they blocked everything. Mitch McConnell has bragged that their most
important task is to keep Obama from being reelected. That means more important
than halping the American economy recover. We can all see what the Repubs care
about. It's not the American people.



The American Republicans are like the Canadian Liberals.
They truly believe they are pre-destined to govern, come hell or high
water - and will do ANYTHING to make that come true - even if it means
there is no country left to govern.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:19:14 +0000 (UTC), "A. Baum"
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:38:06 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that business
is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more of
this change? I hope not.

Skyrocketing unemployment. Government takeover of health, auto and
banking. Unfathomable debit and trade deficits. All in two years.
You'd rather have skyrocketing unemployment, no health care, no auto
makers, and no banks - all in 6 months????????? And still have the
trade deficits and unfathomable debt (to China)??

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Well, during the GWB time, we had about 5% unemployment. I believe
that the spike in unemployment was due to the BHO tax increases,
reckless spending, and many new regulations and other unfunded
mandates.

Actually, taxes on business are lower than ever.

You had better get facts b/4 claiming percentage on unemployment. Start
here.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Surv...o l=%22EaG%22

Unfunded mandates? I will say O said we had to fund the wars, where as the
previous administration did not fund the wars. Look it up, I'm gonna charge
if I have to be your history teacher.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:40:13 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


On 10/26/2010 8:38 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that
business is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay
him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more of
this change? I hope not.

Somehow in a society where you live, Utah, a man having to lay off his own
son is a sign of terrible times ahead. In an area of the country where
employers stack their roles with employees, some of which do absolutely
nothing, it is scary that they would let one of their own go. I guess he
chose his son over his Mom, Dad, and wives, and just had to cut someone. In
most areas, they cut an unproductive worker.

Steve
http://www.exmormon.org/

In a "family business" - in many cases literally a "mom and pop" - the
som may very well have been the ONLY employee.

Ever think of that??? We are not talking big business here, that could
support "featherbedding" the kid, even in good times.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:40:13 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


On 10/26/2010 8:38 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that
business is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay
him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more of
this change? I hope not.

Somehow in a society where you live, Utah, a man having to lay off his
own
son is a sign of terrible times ahead. In an area of the country where
employers stack their roles with employees, some of which do absolutely
nothing, it is scary that they would let one of their own go. I guess he
chose his son over his Mom, Dad, and wives, and just had to cut someone.
In
most areas, they cut an unproductive worker.

Steve
http://www.exmormon.org/

In a "family business" - in many cases literally a "mom and pop" - the
som may very well have been the ONLY employee.

Ever think of that??? We are not talking big business here, that could
support "featherbedding" the kid, even in good times.

And the son very well could BE the PROBLEM of no business. Ever think of
that?

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that
business is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay
him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more of
this change? I hope not.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

Tell the son to send back the government unemployment check. Damn
socialist.

In article ,
wrote:


The American Republicans are like the Canadian Liberals.

They truly believe they are pre-destined to govern, come hell or high
water - and will do ANYTHING to make that come true - even if it means
there is no country left to govern.

And yet the American Dems consistently asked how the American public
could be so dumb as NOT put them in power after both Bush elections.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
wrote:
e deficits. All in two years.
You'd rather have skyrocketing unemployment, no health care, no auto
makers, and no banks - all in 6 months????????? And still have the
trade deficits and unfathomable debt (to China)??

We still have no healthcare, the automakers are still on shaky
ground (GM paid back the much of the first loan, much of the second
converted to stock that they will never have to pay off, just the
government sell if it can, while the banks are still there but not
lending anything of any real interest--although in fairness that is
mostly the independent Fed's concern).
In fact, healthcare is probably the single drag on the economy now
because nobody knows for sure what that is going to look like because so
much is being written as regulation. Healthcare is part of the cost
associated with employment, as long as no one can know for sure what
that employee is going to cost them, they are only going to hire a few
people.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"CK Lumbernickle" wrote:


Unfunded mandates? I will say O said we had to fund the wars, where as the
previous administration did not fund the wars. Look it up, I'm gonna charge
if I have to be your history teacher.

You also have to remember when talking about the war that you have to
take 25% off the top. Most of the "War Spending" bills in Congress had
at least that added in domestic earmarks. Bush essentially paid off the
CongressCritters of both parties.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:30:37 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:

Employment figures mean nothing if they're not sustainable.
The former machinist or factory laborer doing customer service or
applying lawn care chemicals or selling cell phones isn't sustainable.

Didn't see anybody here get to the real problem.
Manufacturing has always been the core of America's wealth.
The core is almost gone.
The economy was always trickle up, from the manufacturing core.

The factory workers enriched the economy and were consumers in the
economy.
They were to key factor for most of the "service" economy.
Call them the flywheel, the pilot light, the sourdough starter, or
whatever you want.

A romantic notion.

Gone are the days of the hunter/gatherer society. It was replaced by an
agrarian society.

Then the agrarian society was replaced by the industrial revolution.

We are at the beginning of the manufacturing society being replaced by the
information and service society.

The largest employer in the U.S. is Walmart, and they manufacture nothing.
They leave the production of goods to those who can do them best.


Right. Talk about romantic. Those tired old arguments about American
society's evolution to a "service" economy lead us exactly where we
are - rampant unemployment, soon-to-be second nation status to commie
China.
So they are true in that respect.
All the societies you mentioned except the current American society
involved sweat and hard work by a significant portion of the
population in the production of goods.
Like I said, look around you.
You think all that "stuff" was magically created?
Those who create the "stuff" call the shots.
They own the world. Always have.
And have Americans thinking that Walmart jobs are just great.
Believe what you want.
Just be aware that Walmart probably leads every state with employees
on the Medicaid and food stamps rolls.
Not something I ever aspired to, and not nearly enough slots at
Walmart to provide the masses with jobs.
Hard to fathom how anybody can hold Walmart up as the exemplar of the
"New American service economy."
Bet those Walmart employees provide a lot of work for other service
sector workers, what with all the money they make to spend on
services.

Anyway, I been making my argument for decades without much success.
So your resistance doesn't surprise me.
Many others who said what you do came around though.
Usually right after their job got outsourced overseas.
No reason to think how I do if you're working and making a good buck.
Well, maybe if your grown kids or other family needs your
"assistance," then you might think about it.
That's happening to some.
Don't know for sure if my argument is correct, but so far my
predictions have come true.
Maybe it's not as bad as I think.
I'm just grateful I made and saved my money when "times were good."
Thank the Lord for luck is what I say.

--Vic

"HeyBub" wrote:

-snip-

Yep. Toward the end of the Bush administration, not many jobs were added.

Every once in a while I think you actually believe this crap. Look
at the chart on this page that goes from Jan 2008 to April 2010.

Jim

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:49:18 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote:

-snip-

Yep. Toward the end of the Bush administration, not many jobs were added.

Every once in a while I think you actually believe this crap. Look
at the chart on this page that goes from Jan 2008 to April 2010.

Sorry about that, chief-- how about a link-
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._05/023691.php

Jim

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:27:08 -0400, "CK Lumbernickle"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:40:13 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


On 10/26/2010 8:38 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that
business is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay
him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more of
this change? I hope not.

Somehow in a society where you live, Utah, a man having to lay off his
own
son is a sign of terrible times ahead. In an area of the country where
employers stack their roles with employees, some of which do absolutely
nothing, it is scary that they would let one of their own go. I guess he
chose his son over his Mom, Dad, and wives, and just had to cut someone.
In
most areas, they cut an unproductive worker.

Steve
http://www.exmormon.org/

In a "family business" - in many cases literally a "mom and pop" - the
som may very well have been the ONLY employee.

Ever think of that??? We are not talking big business here, that could
support "featherbedding" the kid, even in good times.

And the son very well could BE the PROBLEM of no business. Ever think of
that?


Anything is possible - and I've seen it happen.
But I've seen business just so slow it's hard to keep the doors open,
even at a decent shop.
The kid could well be better off on Pogey.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:23:53 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Democrats, in general, believe that the size of the pie is fixed and want it
re-sliced into more equal pieces. Republicans, all, believe that tax cuts
can eliminate poverty, soothe bee-bites, and cure cancer.

Both groups exaggerate a little.


What I think you said, Democrats have only one pie for the entire
world. The pieces get smaller and smaller.

Republicans want to teach me how to bake a pie, share them and even
give to charity.

Obama says I have to "ride in the back" of his car. Rosa Parks would
be ashamed of him for that comment.

On 10/27/2010 6:24 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:40:13 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


On 10/26/2010 8:38 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that
business is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay
him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more of
this change? I hope not.

Somehow in a society where you live, Utah, a man having to lay off his own
son is a sign of terrible times ahead. In an area of the country where
employers stack their roles with employees, some of which do absolutely
nothing, it is scary that they would let one of their own go. I guess he
chose his son over his Mom, Dad, and wives, and just had to cut someone. In
most areas, they cut an unproductive worker.

Steve
http://www.exmormon.org/

In a "family business" - in many cases literally a "mom and pop" - the
som may very well have been the ONLY employee.


Or....the biz was truly "mom and pop", NEEDED no employees and mom and
pop only hired a sorry loser so he would have a paycheck that nobody
else wished to give him )

Ever think of that??? We are not talking big business here, that could
support "featherbedding" the kid, even in good times.

On 10/27/2010 6:35 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:
e deficits. All in two years.
You'd rather have skyrocketing unemployment, no health care, no auto
makers, and no banks - all in 6 months????????? And still have the
trade deficits and unfathomable debt (to China)??

We still have no healthcare, the automakers are still on shaky
ground (GM paid back the much of the first loan, much of the second
converted to stock that they will never have to pay off, just the
government sell if it can, while the banks are still there but not
lending anything of any real interest--although in fairness that is
mostly the independent Fed's concern).

Perhaps the stock market sucked in all of the monies that banks once had
to lend and grant interest on....could 401k's be the real drag on the
economy? They sure made everyone begin to vote as if they were
corporate board members and made poverty a crime. 401k's came about at
the same time Reagan began dismantling unions and job-based benefits.
Rent-a-temp might work well for members of Congress. )


In fact, healthcare is probably the single drag on the economy now
because nobody knows for sure what that is going to look like because so
much is being written as regulation. Healthcare is part of the cost
associated with employment, as long as no one can know for sure what
that employee is going to cost them, they are only going to hire a few
people.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:44:09 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

A. Baum wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:38:06 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that
business is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay
him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more
of this change? I hope not.

Skyrocketing unemployment. Government takeover of health, auto and
banking. Unfathomable debit and trade deficits. All in two years.

Guess what? It's not going bad at nearly the rate it was two years ago.
Pretty
good, considering how long they spent screwing everything up before that.


Nobody wants to blame Bwany Fwank?

I see his attorneys have jumped ship and he will be representing
himself, soon - a fool for a client.

Anyone notice financial reform left out Fannie and Freddie?

I see you listen to hate radio. Why do you type like a child, does hate
radio teach you that, or did you learn on your own?

By Fannie & Freddie, you mean the American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003?
The previous administration pushed the envelope with their brainstorm. It
was working rather well, until American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003.
Tell us again who controlled everything then.

I'd trade Barry for a potato chip, today.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Leaving the constitutional arguments aside, the answer to political
speech
is more political speech, not less. And to the degree that removing
restrictions enlarges the dialog, the better.

More is spent on advertising potato chips than is spent on
presidential
campaigns. (There are those, however, who would argue that one gets
more
benefit and satisfaction from a potato chip than a president.)

Your ignorance is astounding.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Bob F" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd propose a massive cut in Federal spending. Extend the Bush tax
cuts, and ashcan the Obama medical care take over. I'd propose
simplifying the tax code, and make all elected persons subject to
the
same laws, entitlements, and medical care that thier constituents
have.

Tax cuts have never helped balance the budget. The medical care
changes are
going to save 2 trillion over 10 years. Since most of the tax code is
there to
give tax favors to big business, that might help.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:47:33 -0400, "CK Lumbernickle"
wrote:


By Fannie & Freddie, you mean the American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003?
The previous administration pushed the envelope with their brainstorm. It
was working rather well, until American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003.
Tell us again who controlled everything then.


What I mean?

" Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of
financial crisis.... "

Now I did make a lot of money on paper. But I got out before the
bubble broke. Took my many and run as fast as I could.

That Barney? The same one that opposed accounting scandals? Yep that
was him.

Without the Bush tax cuts, we'd have a sluggish economy like now.

Deficits are caused by liberals spending more than the revenue. Please
do not blame tax payers for deficits. Deficits are caused by spending.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Bob F" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
And the effects of the Clinton tax hike and recession are still
being
felt.

Without the Bush tax cuts, we might even still have the federal budget
surplus
that Clinton left us with. We would be mired in the mess we are in.

Actually, I'm curious where it is in the Constitution that gives the
Fed the authority and power to manage health care. I sure don't
remember it in there.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Bob F" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
You're going to need all that money to pay for Obamacare. Millions
of
welfare people are relying on you.

Fortunately "Obamacare" will save the Feds $2 trillion over 10 years.

On 10/27/2010 7:09 AM, J Burns wrote:
On 10/26/10 9:14 PM, Bob Villa wrote:
Check this out...http://www.marke****ch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-
destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=2

Thanks.

"We're the party that wants to see an America in which people can still
get rich." Ronald Reagan, May 4, 1982


Yeah, I remember the Reagan years. My car loan was 12%. I know
*somebody* got rich.



Jay

I like the "less government" plan.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Both the Democrats and Republicans want to get the economy back on
track.
The Democrats want to do it with more trickle-down (from the
government)
economics, government ownership of banks and auto companies, taking
over
student loans, running health care, and more regulations. The
Republicans
want to improve the economy by getting rid of Obama.

Differing tactics, same goal.

Actually, that behaviour describes Democrats.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

The American Republicans are like the Canadian Liberals.
They truly believe they are pre-destined to govern, come hell or high
water - and will do ANYTHING to make that come true - even if it means
there is no country left to govern.

I didn't ask. I'm not sure if he is collecting.

In any case, the son actually had a real job. So, I doubt he's a
socialist.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"CK Lumbernickle"
wrote in message ...

Tell the son to send back the government unemployment check. Damn
socialist.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:12:49 -0400, Jay Hanig wrote:

On 10/27/2010 7:09 AM, J Burns wrote:
On 10/26/10 9:14 PM, Bob Villa wrote:
Check this out...http://www.marke****ch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-
destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=2

Thanks.

"We're the party that wants to see an America in which people can still
get rich." Ronald Reagan, May 4, 1982


Yeah, I remember the Reagan years. My car loan was 12%. I know
*somebody* got rich.

....because of the Carter years' "stagflation", sure. My first home loan was
14.5%, which I refinanced down to 8%. Those rates (and inflation) dropped
because of Reagan's policies. Too bad he couldn't get the Demonicrat's to cut
spending.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:12:49 -0400, Jay Hanig
wrote:

On 10/27/2010 7:09 AM, J Burns wrote:
On 10/26/10 9:14 PM, Bob Villa wrote:
Check this out...http://www.marke****ch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-
destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=2

Thanks.

"We're the party that wants to see an America in which people can still
get rich." Ronald Reagan, May 4, 1982


Yeah, I remember the Reagan years. My car loan was 12%. I know
*somebody* got rich.



Jay


Remember the misery index under Carter-- credit card interest at 20%
or such?

He was elected by the southern states, because, well, it had been a
long time since a Southerner became POTUS.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:47:33 -0400, "CK Lumbernickle"
wrote:


By Fannie & Freddie, you mean the American Dream Down Payment Act of
2003?
The previous administration pushed the envelope with their brainstorm. It
was working rather well, until American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003.
Tell us again who controlled everything then.


What I mean?

" Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of
financial crisis.... "

Now I did make a lot of money on paper. But I got out before the
bubble broke. Took my many and run as fast as I could.

That Barney? The same one that opposed accounting scandals? Yep that
was him.

You just proved my point, and didn't even realize it.

Frank said that in Sept of 2003. Kathy Harris was the credited by Bush for
being the architect of the American Dream Down Payment in Dec 2003.

As I said, everything was chugging along just fine, until the previous
administration pushed the envelope with the Act of Dec 2003.

Those are facts. Put the blame at the feet of the party responsible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo


It was 109th Congress (Republican majority) , when the bill was introduced.
It then went to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on Jul 28, 2005.

Republicans were the majority in the committee by 2 members. It was
Republican Santorum which proposed the amendments.


The bill was killed technically by Republicans. It is now bill S1100. Which
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs on Apr 12, 2007:

Meanwhile. Democrats sponsored H.R. 1427. It has gone through the steps,
and awaiting voting in the Senate.
Introduced March 9, 2007 , Scheduled for Debate March 29, 2007, Amendments,
and passed the House.

Bill is now dead.


Of course it was Bush, along with McCain who wanted this deregulation to
begin with. Bush took credit for it in 2003.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:37:46 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:12:49 -0400, Jay Hanig
wrote:

On 10/27/2010 7:09 AM, J Burns wrote:
On 10/26/10 9:14 PM, Bob Villa wrote:
Check this out...http://www.marke****ch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-
destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=2

Thanks.

"We're the party that wants to see an America in which people can still
get rich." Ronald Reagan, May 4, 1982


Yeah, I remember the Reagan years. My car loan was 12%. I know
*somebody* got rich.



Jay


Remember the misery index under Carter-- credit card interest at 20%
or such?

Yep, and "stagflation". We're in for another round, too.

He was elected by the southern states, because, well, it had been a
long time since a Southerner became POTUS.

Johnson?

wrote in message
m...
On 10/27/2010 9:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'm not sure which planet you inhabit. But, where I am, the Dems have
spent several trillion dollars, and enacted all manner of legislation
that really killed the economy.


Really? The Dems arrived just in time to pronouce it dead and attempt to
resuscitate....Bush left a pile of poo for the next admin. to clean up.

And they rushed right in and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to do it.
But so far, not one speck of dust has been moved, not even the ones
surrounding the bare spots on the floor where pallets of money used to be
..................

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

On 10/27/2010 9:10 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Your ignorance is astounding.

His? Pony up a response instead of just snipping his entire argument.

I'm astounded at how those on the right know so much on faith. They have
such faith in their own beliefs that they can not accept that they could
be wrong. It's a fantasy world they live in and they are so convinced
that everyone who thinks differently than they do just has to be wrong.

Tax cuts never pay for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...ministrati on

The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including
the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[10] In 2003,
450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the
Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush
stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook...
will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security
and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health,
infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further
inequalities in after-tax income."[11]

The Bush administration has claimed, based on the concept of the Laffer
Curve, that the tax cuts actually paid for the themselves by generating
enough extra revenue from additional economic growth to offset the lower
taxation rates. However, income tax revenues in dollar terms did not
regain their FY 2000 peak until 2006. Through the end of 2008, total
federal tax revenues relative to GDP have yet to regain their 2000 peak.[12]

In contrast to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and Republican
presidential primary candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, there is a broad
consensus among even conservative economists (including current and
former top economists of the Bush Administration such as Greg Mankiw)
that the tax cuts have had a substantial net negative impact on revenues
(i.e., revenues would have been substantially higher if the tax cuts had
not taken place), even taking into account any stimulative effect the
tax cuts may have had and any resulting revenue feedback effects.[13]



Subtract out the W tax cuts and the costs of the two wars and wouldn't
have the deficit we have now. Subtract out W's policy of letting the
markets and big business do whatever was in their immediate best
interest and we wouldn't have a fiscal crisis.

Now, here is how I feel about this. Either actually come up with some
argument based on something other that your blind belief and supported
by nothing more that your saying it is so, or resign yourself to being
referred to as "Storm'n Moron".

Your call.
Jeff

On 10/27/2010 9:11 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Without the Bush tax cuts, we'd have a sluggish economy like now.

Exactly where do you think all that money that went to the upper tier
earners went? It didn't go to expanding the economy, the economy grew
faster before. There was so much money floating around that it went in
to all those exotic investments that brought enormous short term profits
to the rich but were the source of the collapse.


Deficits are caused by liberals spending more than the revenue. Please
do not blame tax payers for deficits. Deficits are caused by spending.

One quarter of the deficit is the Bush tax cut. W kept both wars off
budget, but their cost is substantial. That is the reality instead of
your unsubstantiated suppositions.

As far as liberal spending, W spent like a drunken sailor. Public
spending increased by 70%. Add in his unpaid for tax cuts and the
deficit more than doubled. It was declining before he came in office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

Note also that GDP increase was greater under Clinton. Exactly how are
W's policies better for the country?

If you want the rich to have more money than fine. But don't say it is
for the good of the country as there is no evidence of that.


Jeff

On Oct 27, 1:38*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
You should know-- Dems don't give to charity. Republicans do.

Why would I know? I'm an Independent.

And how do YOU know?

I DO know that (the hard core) Republicans have their own set of
charities, conveniently located at one address on Wall Street

HB

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Higgs Boson" wrote in message

...
On Oct 27, 5:19 am, Smitty Two wrote:



In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this
the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for
more of
this change? I hope not.

Pretty good. Business is booming. Had my best month ever last month.
Just hired another worker. Kicked in another $100 to the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee. Just spent $1200 on a couple of
sticks of
antique furniture for my new office. Let's keep the recovery on
track.

How much did you give to charity?

HB

"Jeff Thies" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/2010 9:11 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Without the Bush tax cuts, we'd have a sluggish economy like now.

Exactly where do you think all that money that went to the upper tier
earners went? It didn't go to expanding the economy, the economy grew
faster before. There was so much money floating around that it went in to
all those exotic investments that brought enormous short term profits to
the rich but were the source of the collapse.


Deficits are caused by liberals spending more than the revenue. Please
do not blame tax payers for deficits. Deficits are caused by spending.

One quarter of the deficit is the Bush tax cut. W kept both wars off
budget, but their cost is substantial. That is the reality instead of your
unsubstantiated suppositions.

As far as liberal spending, W spent like a drunken sailor. Public
spending increased by 70%. Add in his unpaid for tax cuts and the deficit
more than doubled. It was declining before he came in office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

Note also that GDP increase was greater under Clinton. Exactly how are W's
policies better for the country?

If you want the rich to have more money than fine. But don't say it is
for the good of the country as there is no evidence of that.


Jeff



You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to post
properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

"Fred" wrote in message
...

Good point. During the first six years of the Bush administration
unemployment averaged 5%, the stock market topped 14,000, there were
24 consecutive months of economic growth. All this in spite of two
wars, Katrina, and 9/11.

By that logic, an airliner that crashed when it came in for landing had
a pretty good flight considering that nothing went wrong until right at
the end.

when the shoe shine boy took over the captains seat.

It's nice when genetic bottlenecks like you announce themselves in plain
language, usually you cross-burner types try to conceal your true nature if
you can.