jbrain Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 President Obama has had four years to fix the economy, and it's not his fault he's failed so far. He's tried very hard, and he's made some headway. But the task is so great that no one, not even FDR or Bill Clinton, could have done any better than he has. Thus, on effort and good intentions alone, Obama has earned four more years.That's a pathetically weak argument for reelection. But aside from attacking Mitt Romney, it's the best Obama, Clinton, and Vice President Joe Biden could come up with at last week's Democratic convention to defend a president bent on imposing policies that have produced consistently poor results. http://www.weeklysta...hor/fred-barnes It seems to be beyond your comprehension that the bigger the damage, the more costly and time-consuming the repairs. Obama should have thought of that before promising to cut the deficit in half, that his “stimulus” would “create or save 3.5 million jobs and that unemployment would be below 6% by now. Well I guess the problem is that you don't get a look in the real books untill you have taken over a defunct company.At that point all the snakes come out of the grass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 He said that he would be a "one term proposition" if he did not fix the economy in 2009. He had already seen the "real books" by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 It's probably a good thing that I wasn't US president in Sept 2008, because I would have let the chips fall as they may. In other words, if a business is inept, such as Goldman Sachs, AIS, Morgan Stanley, J.P Morgan, etc, and it screws up, it should drop of its own weight. Even though I'm liberal in many ways, As a supply-sider, I'm more conservative than conservatives. If those companies failed, the people working there wouldn't die. They would find other work, maybe flipping soyburgers or hosing down rented cars. And here's the interesting part: More adept people would form start-ups, fill those niches, and those that did their jobs well would succeed! How do you feel about the bailout of GM and Chrysler? Should those companies have been allowed to fail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 This topic is beginning to veer off-topic. Please keep it civil and reasonably in the bounds of what is on the topic. I know that it is quite difficult to discuss the politics, if the scope is too narrow, however, we still need to keep it within limits. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 It's probably a good thing that I wasn't US president in Sept 2008, because I would have let the chips fall as they may. In other words, if a business is inept, such as Goldman Sachs, AIS, Morgan Stanley, J.P Morgan, etc, and it screws up, it should drop of its own weight. Even though I'm liberal in many ways, As a supply-sider, I'm more conservative than conservatives. If those companies failed, the people working there wouldn't die. They would find other work, maybe flipping soyburgers or hosing down rented cars. And here's the interesting part: More adept people would form start-ups, fill those niches, and those that did their jobs well would succeed! If you haven't read it already, get your hands on a book called 'The Big Short' by Michael Lewis. Explains the housing bubble and how the banks went on a frenzy. And how a small bunch of renegades bet against it. Great book. If you haven't read it already, look up The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 on the internet. Follow it's history down through time and what affect it had on our current economic crisis. You might accidentally find out what actually caused the Sub Prime Mortgage lending mess that led to the current financial crisis. Most of the banks went on a "frenzy" because they were required to by the federal government. Catch up with the latest on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and find out when Bush started warning Congress and the nation about the problem with those two GSEs. Check out Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, et al on YouTube as they assured the world there was no problem with the two GSEs. I'm sure the small bunch of "renegades", as you describe them, saw this all coming and took advantage of more federal government screw ups. Wouldn't you if you had the chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 The problem with dissecting the economic meltdown is probably outside the scope of this topic. You can find a lot of things that a lot of people said from both sides of the aisle. Overall, the problem is that when people are making money and times are good, no one complains. Not many people filing lawsuits, not many people demanding regulations or enforcement. When things go to pear-shaped, there is a lot of wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 The problem with dissecting the economic meltdown is probably outside the scope of this topic. You can find a lot of things that a lot of people said from both sides of the aisle. Overall, the problem is that when people are making money and times are good, no one complains. Not many people filing lawsuits, not many people demanding regulations or enforcement. When things go to pear-shaped, there is a lot of wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. Dropping any partisan position for the minute, yes you are correct. The election cycle actually is highly detrimental to the economic management of the economy. The rot really started when the link between the dollar and Gold was broken, this gave a powerful vested interest incentive for the incumbents to defer debts until they were hopefully re-elected. The record rate at which Obama has added to the national debt, now $16 trillion is symptomatic we are reaching the end game where accelerating debt will either kill the dollar and the U.S economy, or it will have to go cold turkey and that means years or even decades of austerity. With this backdrop plans to actually expand the public sector at the expense of the private sector is utter madness. I make no secret of where my sympathies are, but I pity the next administration who ever they are as things look like going pop between 2012 and 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Yes, and I pitied the people in steerage on the Titanic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Catch up with the latest on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and find out when Bush started warning Congress and the nation about the problem with those two GSEs. Check out Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, et al on YouTube as they assured the world there was no problem with the two GSEs Was that at about the same time he was sounding all the alarm bells about Enron? Oh, hang on..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) It's probably a good thing that I wasn't US president in Sept 2008, because I would have let the chips fall as they may. In other words, if a business is inept, such as Goldman Sachs, AIS, Morgan Stanley, J.P Morgan, etc, and it screws up, it should drop of its own weight. Even though I'm liberal in many ways, As a supply-sider, I'm more conservative than conservatives. If those companies failed, the people working there wouldn't die. They would find other work, maybe flipping soyburgers or hosing down rented cars. And here's the interesting part: More adept people would form start-ups, fill those niches, and those that did their jobs well would succeed! How do you feel about the bailout of GM and Chrysler? Should those companies have been allowed to fail? Yes. The equipment wouldn't disappear overnight. The suppliers and all the infrastructure would still be there. It would have simply swept out the top execs, and hopefully replaced them with people who can do a better job. GM, Chrysler and Ford have been doing a mediocre job, at best, for the past half century. They've missed almost every trend toward smaller, more fuel-efficient, cost cutting, alternatives that others, (mainly the Japs) have woken up to. The Big 3's top management have been in a collective stupor, drunk from federal grants . The only time they've woken up was when Washington mentioned shoveling billions more in their laps. Did you know they have to borrow money each week just to make payroll? I wouldn't want those guys running a local car wash, let alone a large corp making vehicles. GM introduced a solar car, found out it was becoming too popular (and would have hurt their buddies in Big Oil), so they took all the solar cars and had them physically crushed in the desert. If that's not screwed management, I don't know what is. Edited September 12, 2012 by maidu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Catch up with the latest on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and find out when Bush started warning Congress and the nation about the problem with those two GSEs. Check out Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, et al on YouTube as they assured the world there was no problem with the two GSEs Was that at about the same time he was sounding all the alarm bells about Enron? Oh, hang on..... Bush Jr. didn't sound any alarm bells. Others did. Bush wouldn't have noticed anything amiss among his buddies. He would have continued to believe Enron was humming along fine. Bush Jr. was a bumbling follower, not a leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 It's probably a good thing that I wasn't US president in Sept 2008, because I would have let the chips fall as they may. In other words, if a business is inept, such as Goldman Sachs, AIS, Morgan Stanley, J.P Morgan, etc, and it screws up, it should drop of its own weight. Even though I'm liberal in many ways, As a supply-sider, I'm more conservative than conservatives. If those companies failed, the people working there wouldn't die. They would find other work, maybe flipping soyburgers or hosing down rented cars. And here's the interesting part: More adept people would form start-ups, fill those niches, and those that did their jobs well would succeed! If you haven't read it already, get your hands on a book called 'The Big Short' by Michael Lewis. Explains the housing bubble and how the banks went on a frenzy. And how a small bunch of renegades bet against it. Great book. If you haven't read it already, look up The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 on the internet. Follow it's history down through time and what affect it had on our current economic crisis. You might accidentally find out what actually caused the Sub Prime Mortgage lending mess that led to the current financial crisis. Most of the banks went on a "frenzy" because they were required to by the federal government. Catch up with the latest on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and find out when Bush started warning Congress and the nation about the problem with those two GSEs. Check out Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, et al on YouTube as they assured the world there was no problem with the two GSEs. I'm sure the small bunch of "renegades", as you describe them, saw this all coming and took advantage of more federal government screw ups. Wouldn't you if you had the chance? Without wanting to be controversial, I suspect we are talking about differnt things here. While you are right about the law it seems, I'm not entirely sure that no-Doc NIJA loans were on the cards, nor were credit default swaps which essentially dressed up these loans as AAA grade bonds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Obama should have thought of that before promising to cut the deficit in half, that his “stimulus” would “create or save 3.5 million jobs and that unemployment would be below 6% by now. OK, everyone knows politician promises are bullsh*t. Then there is the fact that they can't promise things that they can't do by themselves - things they need to convince Congress or the Supreme Court to go along with. Sometimes, major things happen that change everything, like 9/11 less than 9 months after Bush was sworn in back in 2001. As far as promises go, agree with him or not, at least Obama made an attempt to close GITMO from the very beginning. BUT, just how did Obama even try to cut the deficit in half in 4 years? Instead of going from $10 to $5 billion, it went the other way, from $10 to $16 billion? What can explain an $11 billion swing? We were already in the mess by the time of the election so he can't claim it was a surprise. The Dems controlled Congress until Jan 2011 so he can't blame the Republicans. WHERE has he tried to cut spending? Seems to me all I ever hear about is him wanting to spend more and more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I'm not overly impressed by his efforts to close Gitmo. It actually comes in handy sometimes. Now, cutting the deficit would have been a feather in his cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 It's probably a good thing that I wasn't US president in Sept 2008, because I would have let the chips fall as they may. In other words, if a business is inept, such as Goldman Sachs, AIS, Morgan Stanley, J.P Morgan, etc, and it screws up, it should drop of its own weight. Even though I'm liberal in many ways, As a supply-sider, I'm more conservative than conservatives. If those companies failed, the people working there wouldn't die. They would find other work, maybe flipping soyburgers or hosing down rented cars. And here's the interesting part: More adept people would form start-ups, fill those niches, and those that did their jobs well would succeed! I agree. I thought the way it was supposed to work that if your company fails, then you look for new work, NOT get a massive bonus and bailout from the taxpayers. And, I hadn't thought of it before but you're right, the people put out of work, the most competent of them would form new companies that could be better, stronger from learning from mistakes. I don't think the lesson that mistakes teach should be that you'll get bailed out and receive a fat bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moe666 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Reagan would be WAY to left wing to be even nominated as the republican candidate for president these days. Balderdash. Just because you read it in a Michael Moore propaganda piece doesn't make it so. Your defense when you have no defense if you can prove JT wrong do it none of what he said came from Michael Moore. The 1 dollar in Tax increase for 10 dollars in spending came in one of there primary debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Catch up with the latest on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and find out when Bush started warning Congress and the nation about the problem with those two GSEs. Check out Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, et al on YouTube as they assured the world there was no problem with the two GSEs Was that at about the same time he was sounding all the alarm bells about Enron? Oh, hang on..... Enron flourished during the Clinton years and didn't last 12 months under the Bush administration, Surely you aren't blaming Clinton for Enron?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moe666 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I have no confidence in Mitt balancing any budget if he is elected. The Ryan plan doesn't even start to balance the budget until 2030 after these guys are long gone and new budgets have come and gone to replace the Ryan plan. If republicans are such great budget balancers why did they spend the Clinton and the republican house balanced budget money. After giving huge tax cuts then the Bush adminstration went on a 5 trillion dollar spending spree which Paul Ryan voted for each and every year. I am asking the supporters of the talk about balancing budget party to tell me why I should have any confidence in there Party to balance the budget. Please do not give me the bull about being a business man either, government and business are too different beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moe666 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 He fixed the Olympics, he reduced the unemployment rate in Massachusetts to 4.6 and balanced the budget. He made a ton of money in business. He does fit that profile and very well. Romney economics didn’t work then, and it won’t work now. www.3CHICSPOLITICO.com . Far be it from me to argue with the "3chickspoliticico" blog! "As governor, Romney balanced the budget without raising taxes and created jobs.http://www.politifac...-romney-record/ He didn't increase taxes but he raised fees 580 million his first year in office he lowered support to local governments who were forced to raise taxes on the local level. Becarefull what you write as it can all be checked. He also left a medical program he has decided to run away from. What a joker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) Back to the topic of the Dem National Convention, this is hilarious... Russian ships displayed at DNC tribute to vets On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message. But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships. While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above. Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets. It remains unclear how or why the Democratic Party used what’s believed to be images of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at their convention. http://www.navytimes...-tribute-091112 Edited September 12, 2012 by koheesti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbrain Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) Catch up with the latest on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and find out when Bush started warning Congress and the nation about the problem with those two GSEs. Check out Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, et al on YouTube as they assured the world there was no problem with the two GSEs Was that at about the same time he was sounding all the alarm bells about Enron? Oh, hang on..... Enron flourished during the Clinton years and didn't last 12 months under the Bush administration, Surely you aren't blaming Clinton for Enron?? I don't know where you get your information but there is alot out on the WWWhttp://www.commondre...s02/0308-03.htm Published on Thursday, March 7, 2002 in The Nation W.'s First Enron Connection: Update on the Bush-Enron Oil Deal by David Corn Editor's note: Below is David Corn's article, posted on March 4, 2002, that first broke news of the Bush-Enron oil deal. An update follows. http://www.alternet.org/story/36692/enron_bosses--guilty%3B_george_bush--guilty Enron Bosses--Guilty; George Bush--Guilty The biggest Enron fraud is Bush's claim that he was not close to now-convicted Enron founder Ken Lay. Edited September 12, 2012 by jbrain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Catch up with the latest on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and find out when Bush started warning Congress and the nation about the problem with those two GSEs. Check out Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, et al on YouTube as they assured the world there was no problem with the two GSEs Was that at about the same time he was sounding all the alarm bells about Enron? Oh, hang on..... Enron flourished during the Clinton years and didn't last 12 months under the Bush administration, Surely you aren't blaming Clinton for Enron?? I don't know where you get your information but there is alot out on the WWWhttp://www.commondre...s02/0308-03.htm Did Bush have tight connections with Kenny and Enron? Yes, he did. But Enron was at its peak during the Clinton years and started crashing down in late 2001 (Bush sworn in Jan 2001). Why didn't anyone do anything about Enron during the Clinton years? And why didn't Bush help out his buddy Kenny? Isn't that what politicians are supposed to do when their rich, donors get in trouble? Anyway, ancient history IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Back to the topic of the Dem National Convention, this is hilarious... Russian ships displayed at DNC tribute to vets On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message. But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships. While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above. Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets. It remains unclear how or why the Democratic Party used what’s believed to be images of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at their convention. http://www.navytimes...-tribute-091112 I guess they could have found a random bum off the street to talk to chair for 20 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Back to the topic of the Dem National Convention, this is hilarious... Russian ships displayed at DNC tribute to vets On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message. But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships. While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above. Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets. It remains unclear how or why the Democratic Party used what’s believed to be images of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at their convention. http://www.navytimes...-tribute-091112 I guess they could have found a random bum off the street to talk to chair for 20 minutes. Naw, they got that bum to deliver the final speech on Thursday, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) In more on-topic news... John Stossel debunks a lot of what Clinton successfully convinced Democrats of but what is far from the truth... Clinton Myths Bill Clinton got rave reviews for his speech at the Democratic National Convention. My wife said: "Clinton was great. He made Republicans look like liars and losers." Clinton, now a sainted elder statesman, also gets credit for the booming economy of the '90s. ... Ah, the progressives' George W. Bush deregulation myth: Bush's anti-regulation crusade caused our problems. This is a lie that seems true because of constant media repetition. In fact, Bush talked deregulation but vastly increased the regulatory state. He hired an astounding 90,000 new regulators. Under Democrats and Republicans, regulation grows. ... President Clinton happily takes credit for reducing America's budget deficit and presiding over a period of strong economic growth. But this happened not because of wise leadership. Clinton had the good fortune to reside in the White House just as the high-tech information revolution kicked in and a Republican Congress stopped him from spending what Democrats wanted to spend. Progressives say that his increase of the top tax bracket did not prevent economic growth, but it never occurs to them that growth would have been even stronger had government not confiscated that money. Sadly, most who watched St. Bill at the DNC will never know the truth. http://www.realclear...ths_115413.html Edited September 12, 2012 by koheesti 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Catch up with the latest on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and find out when Bush started warning Congress and the nation about the problem with those two GSEs. Check out Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, et al on YouTube as they assured the world there was no problem with the two GSEs Was that at about the same time he was sounding all the alarm bells about Enron? Oh, hang on..... Enron flourished during the Clinton years and didn't last 12 months under the Bush administration, Surely you aren't blaming Clinton for Enron?? Absolutely I'm blaming Bush for Enron. The deregulation that led to their suicidal business practices came from Bush - and they funded his election. He used to call Ken Lay "Kenny Boy". As a "Bush Pioneer" in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, Lay was a key member of the Bush campaign's fund-raising inner circle. Under Lay's leadership, Enron ultimately gave Bush $550,025, making the corporation the Texan's No. 1 career patron at the time the 2000 election campaign began, according to the Center for Public Integrity. Lay personally pumped almost $400,000 into Republican hard- and soft-money funds, while Enron slipped another $1.5 million into the GOP's soft-money cesspool. But that was just the beginning. Lay sent a letter to Enron executives urging them to contribute to Bush's campaign. More than 100 of them -- including Skilling, a major Bush giver since 1993, when he cut his first $5,000 check to GW's gubernatorial campaign -- did just that. Dozens of spouses wrote, including "homemaker" and frequent $10,000 donor Linda Lay, gave as well, making the Enron "family" a prime source of the money that gave Bush his early advantage over Republican rivals such as Arizona Senator John McCain. All told, it is estimated that, over the years prior the company's bankruptcy, Lay, his company and its employees contributed close to $2 million to fund George W. Bush's political rise. Lay found other ways to help, as well. He put Enron's corporate jets at the disposal of the Bush campaign in 2000. He kicked in $5,000 to pay for the Florida recount fight, while a top Enron "consultant," former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, ran the Republican's recount effort. He even paid for his own bookkeeping, chipping in $1,000 to help the Bush-Cheney campaign comply with campaign-finance laws. And Lay and Enron gave $300,000 to underwrite the Bush-Cheney inauguration festivities in 2001. Did all that giving pay off? You bet! Lay was appointed as one of five members of the elite "Energy Department Transition Team," which set the stage for the Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force and administration policies designed to benefit corporations such as Enron. A report on "Bush Administration Contacts with Enron," compiled at the request of Congressman Henry Waxman, D-California, by the minority staff of the Special Investigations Division of the House Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, found evidence of at least 112 contacts between Enron and White House or other Administration officials during the month prior to the corporation's very-public collapse in late 2001. At least 40 of those contacts involved top White House officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, presidential advisor Karl Rove, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey, White House personnel director Clay Johnson III, and White House energy task force director Andrew D. Lundquist. As Waxman explained in a 2001 interview, "The fact of the matter is that Enron and Ken Lay, who was the Chief Executive Officer of Enron, had an extraordinary amount of influence and access to the Bush Administration. Lay was called a close friend by both the President and the Vice President. When the Vice President chaired an Energy Task Force, Ken Lay had an opportunity to meet privately with the Vice President and to have a great deal of influence in their recommendations." Bush and his aides have worked hard since the Enron scandal broke to suggest that Lay was just another generous Texan. But the attempts to deny linkages to the now-convicted corporate criminal never cut water with Lone Star-state watchdog Craig McDonald, the director of Texans for Public Justice. "President Bush's explanation of his relationship with Enron is at best a half truth," McDonald said after Bush first tried to distance himself from Lay and other Enron executives. "He was in bed with Enron before he ever held a political office." As governor and president, Bush maintained that intimate relationship. Now that his strange bedmate have been convicted of fraud, isn't it time for the president to end the fraud of claiming that he was ever anything less than a political partner of Lay and the Enron team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 He didn't increase taxes but he raised fees 580 million his first year in office They were not broad based fees. They were mostly fees for things like McDonald's advertising on the highway and many had not been raised for 20 years. Just how do you think a state makes money? He also closed corporate tax loopholes to raise revenues which most people would applaud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 And a lot of those signs are for small businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 AS long as the rates are reasonable selling advertising space fits right in with the US being a capitalist country and a good way for state governments to raise revenue fairly - or is capitalism on trial here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Capitalism is not on trial. The thread is about candidates, specifically the one nominated by Bill Clinton. I suggest you chose your words carefully because some posts are bordering on being inflammatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now