Scott you keep insisting on this connection between “Golden Sacks” and President Obama. Have you no self respect? It is one thing to be ignorant, it is completely different to reveal in ignorance. The TARP which was ultimately used to bail out the “too big to fail” banks was passed and the funds distributed with GOP support during the Bush 43 administration.
Now If you are suggesting that government is in the pockets of big business, well I suppose you are right. Though your anger towards Obama and the democrats seems ill placed.
The Bush 43 administration was run almost entirely by big business. Remember how Bush said everything would be better because he would run the country as if it were a business and he was the CEO. Not that Bush ever ran a successful business in his life. And let’s not forget every major regulatory agency was run by individuals with interests in the industries they were charged to regulate. This includes the banking industry. So how did that go? Surplus gone before the end of his first year in office; the nation teetering on the brink of economic collapse near the end of his second term.
The 107th Senate comprised 50 Democratic seats, 49 Republican seats and 1 Independent (James Jeffords Republican turned Independent). No clear party control here since the numerical majority changed three times: twice due to change of Vice Presidents. Though it could be argued that every billed passed by the Senate was signed by Bush thus begging the question of who was in control. The 107th House of Representatives comprised 223 Republicans, 209 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 2 vacant seats.
The Surplus if there was one is indeed debatable but remember Bush pushed his tax cuts for the rich through a Republican controlled congress by saying that the “surplus” would pay for it.
And finally, the budget was balanced not by congress but rather huge new revenues from the .com bubble. Which is also why the surplus is questionable. However, what is not debatable is that during Republican control of the House, Senate, and Executive Branch viz a via the Bush 43 years, budget deficits grew. If your claim is that Republicans balanced the budget than why could they not find a way to keep it balanced while they were in total control? Of course if you were to say its because republicans only give lip service to the idea of balanced budgets, I would agree.
gdavis65 over 14 years ago
Scott you keep insisting on this connection between “Golden Sacks” and President Obama. Have you no self respect? It is one thing to be ignorant, it is completely different to reveal in ignorance. The TARP which was ultimately used to bail out the “too big to fail” banks was passed and the funds distributed with GOP support during the Bush 43 administration.
Now If you are suggesting that government is in the pockets of big business, well I suppose you are right. Though your anger towards Obama and the democrats seems ill placed.
The Bush 43 administration was run almost entirely by big business. Remember how Bush said everything would be better because he would run the country as if it were a business and he was the CEO. Not that Bush ever ran a successful business in his life. And let’s not forget every major regulatory agency was run by individuals with interests in the industries they were charged to regulate. This includes the banking industry. So how did that go? Surplus gone before the end of his first year in office; the nation teetering on the brink of economic collapse near the end of his second term.
gdavis65 over 14 years ago
HOWGOZIT
The 107th Senate comprised 50 Democratic seats, 49 Republican seats and 1 Independent (James Jeffords Republican turned Independent). No clear party control here since the numerical majority changed three times: twice due to change of Vice Presidents. Though it could be argued that every billed passed by the Senate was signed by Bush thus begging the question of who was in control. The 107th House of Representatives comprised 223 Republicans, 209 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 2 vacant seats.
The Surplus if there was one is indeed debatable but remember Bush pushed his tax cuts for the rich through a Republican controlled congress by saying that the “surplus” would pay for it.
And finally, the budget was balanced not by congress but rather huge new revenues from the .com bubble. Which is also why the surplus is questionable. However, what is not debatable is that during Republican control of the House, Senate, and Executive Branch viz a via the Bush 43 years, budget deficits grew. If your claim is that Republicans balanced the budget than why could they not find a way to keep it balanced while they were in total control? Of course if you were to say its because republicans only give lip service to the idea of balanced budgets, I would agree.
brawny80 over 14 years ago
idk lmao but looks funny XDDDD