The 2010 Election

[WinePusher]

Ok, so what's everybodies predications on the upcoming 2010 congressional elections?

I think republicans will take a sweeping majority in the House, and will get huge gains in the senate (but won't regain the majority).

Key races to look out for are:

California Senate: Carly Fiorina (R) vs. Barbara Boxer (D)
Delaware Senate: Christine O' Donnell (R) vs. Chris Coons (D)
Nevada Senate:Sharon Angle (R) vs. Harry Reid (D)
Florida Senate: Marco Rubio (R) vs. Chris Cristie (I)

I also predict republican victories in every single one of these races, even though they are very tight races.

I realize there's nothing religious about this, but I thought it'd be an interesting discussion in light of the upcoming elections. If moderators feel this is inappropriate they can delete it or lock it.

[East of Eden]

Except that with high interest rates you have an easy fix available in cutting interest rates which in turn increases economic activity and employment which in turn solves most of the problems you get from a recession.

So why didn't Carter think of that?

Obama did not have this easy fix available since the interest rates have been near zero for quite a while now

Much lower than interest rates when Reagan was POTUS, and Obama's recovery is still pathetic.

You also can't use the same strategies when those strategies are not available. Tax rates are close to the same rate under Reagan already.

Not really. Reagan's top rate was 28%, Obama wants it to go up to 39.9%. That's a 42% difference. Remember when Reagan cut the top rate from 70% to 28%, federal tax receipts doubled. I predict if the top rates to up, tax receipts will decline.

Deregulation has been ongoing for the last thirty years and as such there is significantly less regulation than during Reagans term.

Agreed, Carter and Sen. Kennedy get credit for some significant deregulation.

Reagan may have advocated smaller government but his own administration caused the government to grow.

Wrong, if you look at federal spending as a percentage of GDP, spending under Reagan fell from 22.2% to 21.2%. Under Obama it is projected to be 25.4% this year. Reagan also had his hands tied as he didn't have control of Congress as Obama does. Since Pelosi has been speaker the federal debt has increased $5,000,000,000,000, after declining under the previous GOP Congress.

It should also be said that making a judgement over twenty years after the fact is much easier to do than when you are in the middle of a crisis.

It should be easier when we have Reagan's successful example, when it was tried it was fairly uncharted territory.

Considering the bondholders would have lost everything if these companies would have been allowed to go bankrupt

So would the unions. That would have been the perfect time to address the unsustainable racket the unions have going whereby they are compensated much more than foreign automakers running plants in the US.

[Grumpy]

Some inconvenient facts...

"Obama’s tax cuts deserve attention

Chances are you’ve heard plenty recently about the “Bush tax cuts� and how Republicans in Congress are determined to keep them going past their scheduled end date of Dec. 31.

But most people, it turns out, aren’t at all aware of the “Obama tax cuts� — yes, they exist — which so far have put more than $240 billion back into the pockets of American taxpayers over the last 18 months or so.

In fact, these may be the most ignored tax breaks in U.S. history.

The tax reductions were part of the early 2009 stimulus bill championed by President Barack Obama and passed by Democrats in Congress as they tried to stave off a second Depression.

But the economic recovery has not occurred as strongly as hoped. So critics of Obama and the stimulus bill are unfairly yet successfully labeling it as little more than a “bailout� for unions and Democratic interests.

This carping often comes from one-note GOP candidates on the campaign trail this fall. They never get tired of offering their solution for boosting U.S. economic fortunes with — naturally — tax cuts, completely ignoring what’s occurred already under the Obama administration.

And don’t forget that congressional Republicans as a bloc opposed the 2009 stimulus bill — and the nearly $300 billion in tax breaks it contained for individuals and small businesses.

The “invisible tax cuts� are getting no respect and too little attention.

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that less than 10 percent of Americans knew about the Obama tax reductions. The Times poll also found that about a third of respondents thought federal taxes on individuals had gone up. They haven’t for almost all taxpayers.
Part of the reason the reductions are hard to notice is that they came in the form of slightly lower withholding of federal taxes from regular paychecks. But these subtractions add up over time. The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, estimates that the Obama tax cuts saved an average of $1,179 for 96.9 percent of U.S. households in 2009. Those tax savings will continue this year as well."


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/29/23 ... z15qJJkba0

Anyone that says Obama has raised taxes doesn't know the facts. And letting the ruinous Bush tax cuts(which produced a LOSS of jobs, not a gain)expire on the richest 2% will help out the bottom 98% that have been taking the short end for over a decade(and it is a measly 2%, identical to what it was under Clinton(which was a very good 8 years for everyone)). Personally, it would be my plan to stopper all the tav shelters and other exemptions that allow huge companies like Monsanto and Haliburton to pay NO TAX AT ALL.

As to Ronald Reagan's legendary tax cutting...

"In Ronald Reagan’s heyday, capital gains were never taxed at less than 20%, and dividends were never taxed at less than 28%. Under the Democrats’ current proposal, the president aims to raise the capital gains tax to a maximum of 20% on long-term gains (from 15% at present). And in an even more pleasant surprise, the top tax on dividends will also go to just 20% as well.



Here’s the scorecard again so there’s no confusion: Reagan was at 20% for capital gains and 28% for dividends. Obama is at 20% for capital gains and 20% for dividends."
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... st=1662557

So 96.9% 0f Americans received a tax cut(from the rates under Bush)averaging over $1,100 for 2009 and will receive much the same this year. And Capital gains would go up 5%, yet still be less than Reagan's lowest rate. Dividends would be 8% lower under Obama's plan. So the message the Right Wing is spouting is lies, propaganda and crap.

Grumpy

[Grumpy]

[East of Eden]

Some inconvenient facts...

"Obama’s tax cuts deserve attention

Chances are you’ve heard plenty recently about the “Bush tax cuts� and how Republicans in Congress are determined to keep them going past their scheduled end date of Dec. 31.

But most people, it turns out, aren’t at all aware of the “Obama tax cuts� — yes, they exist — which so far have put more than $240 billion back into the pockets of American taxpayers over the last 18 months or so.

In fact, these may be the most ignored tax breaks in U.S. history.

The tax reductions were part of the early 2009 stimulus bill championed by President Barack Obama and passed by Democrats in Congress as they tried to stave off a second Depression.

But the economic recovery has not occurred as strongly as hoped.

What recovery?

So critics of Obama and the stimulus bill are unfairly yet successfully labeling it as little more than a “bailout� for unions and Democratic interests.

That about nails it. Borrowing money from our grandchildren to pay off unions doesn't create any jobs.

This carping often comes from one-note GOP candidates on the campaign trail this fall. They never get tired of offering their solution for boosting U.S. economic fortunes with — naturally — tax cuts, completely ignoring what’s occurred already under the Obama administration.

And don’t forget that congressional Republicans as a bloc opposed the 2009 stimulus bill — and the nearly $300 billion in tax breaks it contained for individuals and small businesses.

The “invisible tax cuts� are getting no respect and too little attention.

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that less than 10 percent of Americans knew about the Obama tax reductions. The Times poll also found that about a third of respondents thought federal taxes on individuals had gone up. They haven’t for almost all taxpayers.
Part of the reason the reductions are hard to notice is that they came in the form of slightly lower withholding of federal taxes from regular paychecks. But these subtractions add up over time. The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, estimates that the Obama tax cuts saved an average of $1,179 for 96.9 percent of U.S. households in 2009. Those tax savings will continue this year as well."


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/29/23 ... z15qJJkba0

Anyone that says Obama has raised taxes doesn't know the facts. And letting the ruinous Bush tax cuts(which produced a LOSS of jobs, not a gain)

You mean back when we had a 5% unemployment rate? Why are Obama's tax cuts good but Bush's bad?

expire on the richest 2%

AKA "Job Creators".

will help out the bottom 98% that have been taking the short end for over a decade

Half the people don't even pay taxes, and in many cases get the Earned Income Tax thing.

(and it is a measly 2%, identical to what it was under Clinton(which was a very good 8 years for everyone)).

Thanks to the Gingrich Congress.

Personally, it would be my plan to stopper all the tav shelters and other exemptions that allow huge companies like Monsanto and Haliburton to pay NO TAX AT ALL.

As to Ronald Reagan's legendary tax cutting...

"In Ronald Reagan’s heyday, capital gains were never taxed at less than 20%, and dividends were never taxed at less than 28%. Under the Democrats’ current proposal, the president aims to raise the capital gains tax to a maximum of 20% on long-term gains (from 15% at present). And in an even more pleasant surprise, the top tax on dividends will also go to just 20% as well.

Reagan's top rate was 28% vs. Obama's 39.9%, a 42% difference. We need to be cutting capital gains taxes, not raising them in a bad economy. We have high capital gains tax rates compared to the rest of the world. http://www.accf.org/publications/111/us ... rates-high

We don't need more taxes, we need more taxpayers.

Here’s the scorecard again so there’s no confusion: Reagan was at 20% for capital gains and 28% for dividends. Obama is at 20% for capital gains and 20% for dividends."
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... st=1662557

So 96.9% 0f Americans received a tax cut(from the rates under Bush)averaging over $1,100 for 2009 and will receive much the same this year. And Capital gains would go up 5%, yet still be less than Reagan's lowest rate. Dividends would be 8% lower under Obama's plan. So the message the Right Wing is spouting is lies, propaganda and crap.

You're certainly an expert in all that. Instead of Obama's phoney stimulous bill, we should have given an $800,000,000 broad based tax cut.

[Grumpy]

East of Eden

What recovery?

GM just issued an IPO for the first time in quite a while, it opened at $33 and closed Friday at $36. The Dow Jones is back above 11,000, Jobs are a lagging indicator, but there is now not a loss in jobs, there is a gain. The TARP fund is being paid back with a tidy profit for taxpayers and the auto bailout is almost recouped, with a profit expected. It sure beats what Obama had when he took office, but it is not finished(unless the Reps put politics in front of the good of the country). The Dems paid a heavy price for passing hard legislation while the Reps just said no. But their courage is getting us out of the hole Bush dug with his unfunded wars, lax regulation and reckless tax cuts for the wealthy.

That about nails it. Borrowing money from our grandchildren to pay off unions doesn't create any jobs.

The auto bailout will make a profit for our grandchildren, just as TARP has already done, your talking point is a lie.

You mean back when we had a 5% unemployment rate? Why are Obama's tax cuts good but Bush's bad?

Obama gave WORKING FAMILIES a tax cut, 96.9%0 of all American families make less that 250,000 dollars, they received a $1,100(average)tax cut. The rich, under Bush received tax breaks for shipping our jobs over seas. You figure it out.

expire on the richest 2%

AKA "Job Creators".

Then why didn't they create jobs under Bush. They are doing so right now...in places like India. Obama went and visited all those jobs tax cuts created just last week. Tax cut were tried for over a decade, yet the middle class shrank, poverty skyrocketed and the fat cats rolled in the cash. It's time this stupid Republican mantra was seen for the fleecing of our citizens that it truly is. It is Reps who won't pay off the credit card bill they themselves ran up(9 trillion dollars when Bush left office with the economy in shambles. How soon we forget).

Half the people don't even pay taxes, and in many cases get the Earned Income Tax thing.

Only if you ignore FICA, which EVERY wage earner pays(though that is capped for the higher earners).

We don't need more taxes, we need more taxpayers.

We need corporation paying some taxes, current loopholes allow companies to pay little or no tax. Tax cuts in the middle of two wars was as stupid as it gets. 8 Billion a month for the stupid wars started over lies, yet not payed for.

You're certainly an expert in all that. Instead of Obama's phoney stimulous bill, we should have given an $800,000,000 broad based tax cut.

I think we need to pay our bill(at last) and that will mean taxes must go up, under a Democratic administration or a Republican one. The "tax cut" horse has been ridden into the ground and it has led to disaster for the country as a whole, but good for the rich and their bought and paid for enablers. Well done.

Grumpy

[East of Eden]

GM just issued an IPO for the first time in quite a while, it opened at $33 and closed Friday at $36. The Dow Jones is back above 11,000,

The increase in the DJI and commodities are due to the weak dollar, not a fundamentally strong economy. People are looking for other places to put their cash.

Jobs are a lagging indicator, but there is now not a loss in jobs, there is a gain.

The forecast for the next two years is 2 and 3% growth, which will still leave us at 9% unemployment in 2012. At this rate it would take us 20 years to get back to pre-Obama employment levels.

The TARP fund is being paid back with a tidy profit for taxpayers and the auto bailout is almost recouped, with a profit expected. It sure beats what Obama had when he took office, but it is not finished(unless the Reps put politics in front of the good of the country). The Dems paid a heavy price for passing hard legislation while the Reps just said no.

For politicians, spending money that isn't theirs like a drunken sailor is never hard.

But their courage is getting us out of the hole Bush dug with his unfunded wars, lax regulation and reckless tax cuts for the wealthy.

Most of the hole we're in stems from the idiotic liberal idea of giving home loans to unqualified borrowers. It was social engineering gone haywire.

The auto bailout will make a profit for our grandchildren, just as TARP has already done, your talking point is a lie.

A lot of the phony stimulus money went to overpaid state government union workers.

Obama gave WORKING FAMILIES a tax cut, 96.9%0 of all American families make less that 250,000 dollars, they received a $1,100(average)tax cut. The rich, under Bush received tax breaks for shipping our jobs over seas. You figure it out.

I did. Jobs are shipped overseas to escape Obama tax and regulatory policies.

Then why didn't they create jobs under Bush. They are doing so right now...in places like India. Obama went and visited all those jobs tax cuts created just last week. Tax cut were tried for over a decade, yet the middle class shrank, poverty skyrocketed and the fat cats rolled in the cash. It's time this stupid Republican mantra was seen for the fleecing of our citizens that it truly is. It is Reps who won't pay off the credit card bill they themselves ran up(9 trillion dollars when Bush left office with the economy in shambles. How soon we forget).

Under Bush and the GOP Congress the deficit was going down. Pelosi and company took over and increased the deficit by $5 trillion, despite saying she wouldn't do it. By the looks of the last election, the public is on to her scam. Obama will be the next to go down, and deservedly so.

Only if you ignore FICA, which EVERY wage earner pays(though that is capped for the higher earners).

As it should be, higher earners don't necessarily use more of SSA.

We need corporation paying some taxes, current loopholes allow companies to pay little or no tax. Tax cuts in the middle of two wars was as stupid as it gets.

Not as stupid as tax increased in a recession. Was it also stupid when JFK cut taxes? Do you have a clue what that result was? Federal revenues jumped from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968. For some, not even hindsight vision is 20/20.

8 Billion a month for the stupid wars started over lies, yet not payed for.

It was bad intel, not lies. Perhaps if the Democrats hadn't hamstrung our intelligence 9/11 would have never happened.

I think we need to pay our bill(at last) and that will mean taxes must go up, under a Democratic administration or a Republican one. The "tax cut" horse has been ridden into the ground and it has led to disaster for the country as a whole, but good for the rich and their bought and paid for enablers. Well done.

Tax increased often result in less revenue, while revenues doubled when Reagan cut the top bracket of the job creators from 70% to 28%. Perhaps you weren't yet alive when that was going on.

[Grumpy]

East of Eden

The TARP fund is being paid back with a tidy profit for taxpayers and the auto bailout is almost recouped, with a profit expected. It sure beats what Obama had when he took office, but it is not finished(unless the Reps put politics in front of the good of the country). The Dems paid a heavy price for passing hard legislation while the Reps just said no.

For politicians, spending money that isn't theirs like a drunken sailor is never hard.

But investing in US companies to stabilize them following the crash that OCCURRED UNDER BUSH. Investing and actually making a profit for the taxpayers, that's hard.

But their courage is getting us out of the hole Bush dug with his unfunded wars, lax regulation and reckless tax cuts for the wealthy.

Most of the hole we're in stems from the idiotic liberal idea of giving home loans to unqualified borrowers. It was social engineering gone haywire.

Three words:Credit Default Swaps.

"The Wall Street Ponzi Scheme

The Ponzi scheme that has gone bad is not just another misguided investment strategy. It is at the very heart of the banking business, the thing that has propped it up over the course of three centuries. A Ponzi scheme is a form of pyramid scheme in which new investors must continually be sucked in at the bottom to support the investors at the top. In this case, new borrowers must continually be sucked in to support the creditors at the top. The Wall Street Ponzi scheme is built on “fractional reserve� lending, which allows banks to create “credit� (or “debt�) with accounting entries. Banks are now allowed to lend from 10 to 30 times their “reserves,� essentially counterfeiting the money they lend. Over 97 percent of the U.S. money supply (M3) has been created by banks in this way. The problem is that banks create only the principal and not the interest necessary to pay back their loans, so new borrowers must continually be found to take out new loans just to create enough “money� (or “credit�) to service the old loans composing the money supply. The scramble to find new debtors has now gone on for over 300 years - ever since the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 - until the whole world has become mired in debt to the bankers' private money monopoly. The Ponzi scheme has finally reached its mathematical limits: we are “all borrowed up.�

When the banks ran out of creditworthy borrowers, they had to turn to uncreditworthy “subprime� borrowers; and to avoid losses from default, they moved these risky mortgages off their books by bundling them into “securities� and selling them to investors. To induce investors to buy, these securities were then “insured� with credit default swaps. But the housing bubble itself was another Ponzi scheme, and eventually there were no more borrowers to be sucked in at the bottom who could afford the ever-inflating home prices. When the subprime borrowers quit paying, the investors quit buying mortgage-backed securities. The banks were then left holding their own suspect paper; and without triple-A ratings, there is little chance that buyers for this “junk� will be found. The crisis is not, however, in the economy itself, which is fundamentally sound - or would be with a proper credit system to oil the wheels of production. The crisis is in the banking system, which can no longer cover up the shell game it has played for three centuries with other people's money.


The Derivatives Chernobyl

The latest jolt to the massive derivatives edifice came with the collapse of Bear Stearns on March 16, 2008. Bear Stearns helped fuel the explosive growth in the credit derivative market, where banks, hedge funds and other investors have engaged in $45 trillion worth of bets on the credit-worthiness of companies and countries. Before it collapsed, Bear was the counterparty to $13 trillion in derivative trades. On March 14, 2008, Bear's ratings were downgraded by Moody's, a major rating agency; and on March 16, the brokerage was bought by JPMorgan for pennies on the dollar, a token buyout designed to avoid the legal complications of bankruptcy. The deal was backed by a $29 billion “non-recourse� loan from the Federal Reserve. “Non-recourse� meant that the Fed got only Bear's shaky paper assets as collateral. If those proved to be worthless, JPM was off the hook. It was an unprecedented move, of questionable legality; but it was said to be justified because, as one headline put it, “Fed's Rescue of Bear Halted Derivatives Chernobyl.� The notion either that Bear was “rescued� or that the Chernobyl was halted, however, was grossly misleading. The CEOs managed to salvage their enormous bonuses, but it was a “bailout� only for JPM and Bear's creditors. For the shareholders, it was a wipeout. Their stock initially dropped from $156 to $2, and 30 percent of it was held by the employees. Another big chunk was held by the pension funds of teachers and other public servants. The share price was later raised to $10 a share in response to shareholder outrage, but the shareholders were still essentially wiped out; and the fact that one Wall Street bank had to be fed to the lions to rescue the others hardly inspires a feeling of confidence. Neutron bombs are not so easily contained.

The Bear Stearns hit from the derivatives iceberg followed an earlier one in January, when global markets took their worst tumble since September 11, 2001. Commentators were asking if this was “the big one� - a 1929-style crash; and it probably would have been if deft market manipulations had not swiftly covered over the approaching catastrophe. The precipitous drop was blamed on the threat of downgrades in the ratings of two major monoline insurers, Ambac and MBIA, followed by a $7.2 billion loss in derivative trades by Societe Generale, France's second-largest bank. Like Bear Stearns, the monolines serve as counterparties in a web of credit default swaps, and a downgrade in their ratings would jeopardize the whole shaky derivatives edifice. Without the monoline insurers' traiple-A seal, billions of dollars worth of triple-A investments would revert to junk bonds. Many institutional investors (pension funds, municipal governments and the like) have a fiduciary duty to invest in only the “safest� triple-A bonds. Downgraded bonds therefore get dumped on the market, jeopardizing the banks that are still holding billions of dollars worth of these bonds. The downgrade of Ambac in January signaled a simultaneous downgrade of bonds from over 100,000 municipalities and institutions, totaling more than $500 billion.

Institutional investors have lost a good deal of money in all this, but the real calamity is to the banks. The institutional investors that formerly bought mortgage-backed bonds stopped buying them in 2007, when the housing market slumped. But the big investment houses that were selling them have billions' worth left on their books, and it is these banks that particularly stand to lose as the derivative Chernobyl implodes."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=8634

The auto bailout will make a profit for our grandchildren, just as TARP has already done, your talking point is a lie.

A lot of the phony stimulus money went to overpaid state government union workers.

This assertion is ludicrous. Many Republican lawmakers cried about the stimilus money in Washington while bragging about getting it for their state back home. The unions did not get a lot of anything. Red Herring.

I did. Jobs are shipped overseas to escape Obama tax and regulatory policies.

Years before he came into office...

"Nov 29, 2006-Things may be cheaper over the hill, but there is a cost to the community in buying over there, instead of here." (Margaret House, 2003). Since 2000, employment outsourcing has swept the nation like wildfire. In the early stages of outsourcing, the main jobs were manufacturing jobs. Later in the years, companies began outsourcing technical jobs. Recently Customer Service, Technical Support, Data Entry and Accounting jobs are being sent overseas. These U.S. companies hire employees overseas to cut business costs, obtain skilled employees and increase company productivity."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... html?cat=3

...but don't let the inconvienient facts interfere with your narrative.

Under Bush and the GOP Congress the deficit was going down.

Dude, I blew milk out of my nose when I read that. Bush got control of an economy that was actually running a surplus, he handed Obama a $9 1/2 TRILLION dollar debt(and rapidly increasing)in Janurary, 2009. Again though, don't let inconvenient facts interupt your story.

Only if you ignore FICA, which EVERY wage earner pays(though that is capped for the higher earners).

As it should be, higher earners don't necessarily use more of SSA.

So you are OK with taxing poor people at a higher rate than the rich pay?

Federal revenues jumped from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968.

And the inflation rates for those years? And that was a record period of growth, it is much more complex than the simplistic story you tell.

8 Billion a month for the stupid wars started over lies, yet not payed for.

It was bad intel, not lies.

No, it was lies about the intel they did have, as Joe Wilson showed. The Bush administrations response? Outing an undercover CIA agent(his wife), which, if a democrat had done it, would be called treason.

Tax increased often result in less revenue, while revenues doubled when Reagan cut the top bracket of the job creators from 70% to 28%. Perhaps you weren't yet alive when that was going on.

Then no taxes at all is the way to make sure our grandchildren aren't paying the bills we ran up. And I'm older than you are, being born during the Eisenhower administration.

Go ahead, rant away, don't let those inconvenient facts get in your way.

Grumpy

Grumpy

[micatala]

Jobs are shipped overseas to escape Obama tax and regulatory policies.

A lot of the assertions and comments made by East of Eden in his previous post are spin of the highest order, if not just plain wrong. However, I will simply comment on this one as an example of an overall argument being made by E of E that reflects such severe bias that objectivity has gone fleeing into the night.

We have been shipping jobs over sees for decades, and now E of E has the temerity to claim this is happening because of a President who has been in office less than two years???


Maybe E of E can explain how Obama managed to be motivating people to ship jobs oversees back in the 1990's or in the period between 2000-2008. I would love to hear that.

[East of Eden]

Jobs are shipped overseas to escape Obama tax and regulatory policies.

A lot of the assertions and comments made by East of Eden in his previous post are spin of the highest order, if not just plain wrong. However, I will simply comment on this one as an example of an overall argument being made by E of E that reflects such severe bias that objectivity has gone fleeing into the night.

We have been shipping jobs over sees for decades, and now E of E has the temerity to claim this is happening because of a President who has been in office less than two years???


Maybe E of E can explain how Obama managed to be motivating people to ship jobs oversees back in the 1990's or in the period between 2000-2008. I would love to hear that.

I didn't claim it started with Obama, but it is no secret in a competitive environment businesses will set up shop where the can escape excessive taxation and regulation, and oppressive union demands. Obama seems to be against none of these problems.

[East of Eden]

Three words:Credit Default Swaps.

Here are three more words for you: Community Reinvestment Act. Government created the conditions that allowed Wall St. to do what they did. Banks were being sued by Acorn & co. and being charged with racism when they refused to make loans to unqualified people.

This assertion is ludicrous. Many Republican lawmakers cried about the stimilus money in Washington while bragging about getting it for their state back home. The unions did not get a lot of anything. Red Herring.

No it isn't. Something like 1% of the stimulus went to small businesses, which is where most new jobs are created.

Dude, I blew milk out of my nose when I read that.

That's what the truth does to you, huh?

Bush got control of an economy that was actually running a surplus, he handed Obama a $9 1/2 TRILLION dollar debt(and rapidly increasing)in Janurary, 2009. Again though, don't let inconvenient facts interupt your story.

Although having to deal with the tech bubble aftermath and 9/11, the deficit was going down until Madam Pelosi took over.

So you are OK with taxing poor people at a higher rate than the rich pay?

Ideally, everyone should pay the same rate. God asked for 10% from everyone, but then He's not a socialist.

And the inflation rates for those years? And that was a record period of growth, it is much more complex than the simplistic story you tell.

Not really, adjusted for inflation federal revenues rose 33% in those years, something that's not supposed to happen when taxes are cut, at least according to liberals.

No, it was lies about the intel they did have, as Joe Wilson showed. The Bush administrations response? Outing an undercover CIA agent(his wife), which, if a democrat had done it, would be called treason.

Apparently all the big name Democrats that supported it bought into the 'lies' also. Had Bush not gone in, they probably would have criticized him for not doing anything.

Then no taxes at all is the way to make sure our grandchildren aren't paying the bills we ran up.

Drastically reducing spending would do it.

And I'm older than you are, being born during the Eisenhower administration.

Me too.

Go ahead, rant away, don't let those inconvenient facts get in your way.

Back at you.