Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
luchabee
ParticipantWhat a typical comment.
Please ignore the facts when they are presented to you or change the subject into something that would be just “hilarious on Huffington Post Slate.com?” “Drill, baby, Drill,” an instant laugh for urban liberals who never drive and don’t run businesses.
Also, yes, it is always a good idea to give billions of unearned dollars to the American consumer (who don’t pay taxes) to spend on new HD TVs and rims for their SUV. Better yet, increase taxes on American corporations who actually hire people to pay for it . . . during a recession. Fantastic idea.
If America wants Obamanomics, great. However, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
ParticipantWhat a typical comment.
Please ignore the facts when they are presented to you or change the subject into something that would be just “hilarious on Huffington Post Slate.com?” “Drill, baby, Drill,” an instant laugh for urban liberals who never drive and don’t run businesses.
Also, yes, it is always a good idea to give billions of unearned dollars to the American consumer (who don’t pay taxes) to spend on new HD TVs and rims for their SUV. Better yet, increase taxes on American corporations who actually hire people to pay for it . . . during a recession. Fantastic idea.
If America wants Obamanomics, great. However, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
ParticipantWhat a typical comment.
Please ignore the facts when they are presented to you or change the subject into something that would be just “hilarious on Huffington Post Slate.com?” “Drill, baby, Drill,” an instant laugh for urban liberals who never drive and don’t run businesses.
Also, yes, it is always a good idea to give billions of unearned dollars to the American consumer (who don’t pay taxes) to spend on new HD TVs and rims for their SUV. Better yet, increase taxes on American corporations who actually hire people to pay for it . . . during a recession. Fantastic idea.
If America wants Obamanomics, great. However, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
ParticipantWhat a typical comment.
Please ignore the facts when they are presented to you or change the subject into something that would be just “hilarious on Huffington Post Slate.com?” “Drill, baby, Drill,” an instant laugh for urban liberals who never drive and don’t run businesses.
Also, yes, it is always a good idea to give billions of unearned dollars to the American consumer (who don’t pay taxes) to spend on new HD TVs and rims for their SUV. Better yet, increase taxes on American corporations who actually hire people to pay for it . . . during a recession. Fantastic idea.
If America wants Obamanomics, great. However, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
ParticipantYes, I agree that Bush consented to an insane amount of spending, whether the prescription drug care plan, increased educational spending, the cost of the war, etc.
He was too ready to go along with the Democrats and liberal Republicans on the budget in order to advance the war to even veto one spending bill. He is a complete fiscal failure.
Moreover, and more important long term, he completely retreated from his positions in attempting to reform Fannie, Freddie, and Social Security after the Democrats countered. He should have gone down with the ship on these.
Also, I don’t know what happened to the “fiscal conservatives” in Congress? Maybe they were too intoxicated with DC power and they went along with everything, too?
As a fiscal conservative, I must admit that I’m not too worried about Obama’s spending plan. It is so preposterous right now, given the current economic climate, that I don’t think it will be enacted, even with a liberal Congress.
In the debate, I believe he said that he would only be raising taxes on 5% of the US Corporations that make $250,000 per year. The great bulk of small businesses fail and, of course, most never bring in $250,000 per year. So, what he is really saying is that he wants to tax the most productive companies in the US who do most of the private-sector hiring during a hyper-recession.
This plan will never get passed. The DC business lobby will kill it. If he really wants to increase social spending to this extent, he will just add to our debt like everyone president before him, but I can’t envision a significant increase in corporate taxes anytime soon.
ParticipantYes, I agree that Bush consented to an insane amount of spending, whether the prescription drug care plan, increased educational spending, the cost of the war, etc.
He was too ready to go along with the Democrats and liberal Republicans on the budget in order to advance the war to even veto one spending bill. He is a complete fiscal failure.
Moreover, and more important long term, he completely retreated from his positions in attempting to reform Fannie, Freddie, and Social Security after the Democrats countered. He should have gone down with the ship on these.
Also, I don’t know what happened to the “fiscal conservatives” in Congress? Maybe they were too intoxicated with DC power and they went along with everything, too?
As a fiscal conservative, I must admit that I’m not too worried about Obama’s spending plan. It is so preposterous right now, given the current economic climate, that I don’t think it will be enacted, even with a liberal Congress.
In the debate, I believe he said that he would only be raising taxes on 5% of the US Corporations that make $250,000 per year. The great bulk of small businesses fail and, of course, most never bring in $250,000 per year. So, what he is really saying is that he wants to tax the most productive companies in the US who do most of the private-sector hiring during a hyper-recession.
This plan will never get passed. The DC business lobby will kill it. If he really wants to increase social spending to this extent, he will just add to our debt like everyone president before him, but I can’t envision a significant increase in corporate taxes anytime soon.
ParticipantYes, I agree that Bush consented to an insane amount of spending, whether the prescription drug care plan, increased educational spending, the cost of the war, etc.
He was too ready to go along with the Democrats and liberal Republicans on the budget in order to advance the war to even veto one spending bill. He is a complete fiscal failure.
Moreover, and more important long term, he completely retreated from his positions in attempting to reform Fannie, Freddie, and Social Security after the Democrats countered. He should have gone down with the ship on these.
Also, I don’t know what happened to the “fiscal conservatives” in Congress? Maybe they were too intoxicated with DC power and they went along with everything, too?
As a fiscal conservative, I must admit that I’m not too worried about Obama’s spending plan. It is so preposterous right now, given the current economic climate, that I don’t think it will be enacted, even with a liberal Congress.
In the debate, I believe he said that he would only be raising taxes on 5% of the US Corporations that make $250,000 per year. The great bulk of small businesses fail and, of course, most never bring in $250,000 per year. So, what he is really saying is that he wants to tax the most productive companies in the US who do most of the private-sector hiring during a hyper-recession.
This plan will never get passed. The DC business lobby will kill it. If he really wants to increase social spending to this extent, he will just add to our debt like everyone president before him, but I can’t envision a significant increase in corporate taxes anytime soon.
ParticipantYes, I agree that Bush consented to an insane amount of spending, whether the prescription drug care plan, increased educational spending, the cost of the war, etc.
He was too ready to go along with the Democrats and liberal Republicans on the budget in order to advance the war to even veto one spending bill. He is a complete fiscal failure.
Moreover, and more important long term, he completely retreated from his positions in attempting to reform Fannie, Freddie, and Social Security after the Democrats countered. He should have gone down with the ship on these.
Also, I don’t know what happened to the “fiscal conservatives” in Congress? Maybe they were too intoxicated with DC power and they went along with everything, too?
As a fiscal conservative, I must admit that I’m not too worried about Obama’s spending plan. It is so preposterous right now, given the current economic climate, that I don’t think it will be enacted, even with a liberal Congress.
In the debate, I believe he said that he would only be raising taxes on 5% of the US Corporations that make $250,000 per year. The great bulk of small businesses fail and, of course, most never bring in $250,000 per year. So, what he is really saying is that he wants to tax the most productive companies in the US who do most of the private-sector hiring during a hyper-recession.
This plan will never get passed. The DC business lobby will kill it. If he really wants to increase social spending to this extent, he will just add to our debt like everyone president before him, but I can’t envision a significant increase in corporate taxes anytime soon.
ParticipantYes, I agree that Bush consented to an insane amount of spending, whether the prescription drug care plan, increased educational spending, the cost of the war, etc.
He was too ready to go along with the Democrats and liberal Republicans on the budget in order to advance the war to even veto one spending bill. He is a complete fiscal failure.
Moreover, and more important long term, he completely retreated from his positions in attempting to reform Fannie, Freddie, and Social Security after the Democrats countered. He should have gone down with the ship on these.
Also, I don’t know what happened to the “fiscal conservatives” in Congress? Maybe they were too intoxicated with DC power and they went along with everything, too?
As a fiscal conservative, I must admit that I’m not too worried about Obama’s spending plan. It is so preposterous right now, given the current economic climate, that I don’t think it will be enacted, even with a liberal Congress.
In the debate, I believe he said that he would only be raising taxes on 5% of the US Corporations that make $250,000 per year. The great bulk of small businesses fail and, of course, most never bring in $250,000 per year. So, what he is really saying is that he wants to tax the most productive companies in the US who do most of the private-sector hiring during a hyper-recession.
This plan will never get passed. The DC business lobby will kill it. If he really wants to increase social spending to this extent, he will just add to our debt like everyone president before him, but I can’t envision a significant increase in corporate taxes anytime soon.
ParticipantWith respect to the GSE leg of the problem, this was W’s call for reform in 2003 (after Clinton had also warned of problems), from the NYT:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
. . .
ParticipantWith respect to the GSE leg of the problem, this was W’s call for reform in 2003 (after Clinton had also warned of problems), from the NYT:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
. . .
ParticipantWith respect to the GSE leg of the problem, this was W’s call for reform in 2003 (after Clinton had also warned of problems), from the NYT:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
. . .
ParticipantWith respect to the GSE leg of the problem, this was W’s call for reform in 2003 (after Clinton had also warned of problems), from the NYT:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
. . .
ParticipantWith respect to the GSE leg of the problem, this was W’s call for reform in 2003 (after Clinton had also warned of problems), from the NYT:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
. . .
-
AuthorPosts
