PDA

View Full Version : This Sucks!



Sid_Vicious
04-30-2012, 07:30 AM
Feds eye retirement-fund tax to cut $16 trillion-plus deficit

Uncle Sam, in a desperate attempt to fix its $16 trillion-plus deficit, is leering over Americans’ retirement nest egg as its new bailout fund.

Capitol Hill politicians are assessing tax changes that could let the Internal Revenue Service lay claim to a portion of the $18 trillion sitting in 401(k) accounts and other tax breaks used by middle-class workers, including cutting the mortgage tax deduction.

A commission looking for ways to close the deficit, and, noting the extent of 401(k) tax breaks, recommends an examination of the system as one way to prevent government bankruptcy. ...

... Last week a group of retirement industry experts went to Capitol Hill to criticize these proposed changes in retirement-plan rules. “These changes could have unintended consequences,” warns Lynn Dudley of the American Benefits Council (ABC).

Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee about the proposals, Randolf Hardock, of ABC’s board of directors, said, “[The idea] could seriously undermine the retirement savings system.”

Jack VanDerhei, research director of Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), believes either of the two proposed 401(k) changes under review would have a “catastrophic” effect on the current retirement saving system.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/pl...z1smCBeBwu

Gayle in MD
04-30-2012, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Feds eye retirement-fund tax to cut $16 trillion-plus deficit

Uncle Sam, in a desperate attempt to fix its $16 trillion-plus deficit, is leering over Americans’ retirement nest egg as its new bailout fund.

Capitol Hill politicians are assessing tax changes that could let the Internal Revenue Service lay claim to a portion of the $18 trillion sitting in 401(k) accounts and other tax breaks used by middle-class workers, including cutting the mortgage tax deduction.

A commission looking for ways to close the deficit, and, noting the extent of 401(k) tax breaks, recommends an examination of the system as one way to prevent government bankruptcy. ...

... Last week a group of retirement industry experts went to Capitol Hill to criticize these proposed changes in retirement-plan rules. “These changes could have unintended consequences,” warns Lynn Dudley of the American Benefits Council (ABC).

Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee about the proposals, Randolf Hardock, of ABC’s board of directors, said, “[The idea] could seriously undermine the retirement savings system.”

Jack VanDerhei, research director of Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), believes either of the two proposed 401(k) changes under review would have a “catastrophic” effect on the current retirement saving system.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/pl...z1smCBeBwu </div></div>

Hi Martin,

You are saying it's "The Feds" but isn't this a plan being pushed by Republicans?

As if the Bush Tax cuts weren't doing enough damage already with their skewed and unfair tax cuts, pushing more money to the top one percent, and starving everyone else?

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/04/13/opinion/sunday/0415web-leonhardt2.html?ref=business

Sev
04-30-2012, 08:02 AM
Dont you know everything you think you own is government property.

Good thing Obama has outspent Bush in 3 1/2 years to create this booming recovery.

Sid_Vicious
04-30-2012, 08:15 AM
Sure, it is the Republicans. And I'll be damned if I will ever understand these idiots here who defend that platform and policy let themselves get raped. I seriosly doubt that any of the Elite 1% of the wealthiest are with us here on this board, so these changes are reaming your ah too. It is lunacy, IMO, for people to vote against themselves. "Right is wrong", and they stick to it, even when this affects them, their parents and grandparents who rely on retirement programs. It just make no sense at all. sid


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Feds eye retirement-fund tax to cut $16 trillion-plus deficit

Uncle Sam, in a desperate attempt to fix its $16 trillion-plus deficit, is leering over Americans’ retirement nest egg as its new bailout fund.

Capitol Hill politicians are assessing tax changes that could let the Internal Revenue Service lay claim to a portion of the $18 trillion sitting in 401(k) accounts and other tax breaks used by middle-class workers, including cutting the mortgage tax deduction.

A commission looking for ways to close the deficit, and, noting the extent of 401(k) tax breaks, recommends an examination of the system as one way to prevent government bankruptcy. ...

... Last week a group of retirement industry experts went to Capitol Hill to criticize these proposed changes in retirement-plan rules. “These changes could have unintended consequences,” warns Lynn Dudley of the American Benefits Council (ABC).

Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee about the proposals, Randolf Hardock, of ABC’s board of directors, said, “[The idea] could seriously undermine the retirement savings system.”

Jack VanDerhei, research director of Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), believes either of the two proposed 401(k) changes under review would have a “catastrophic” effect on the current retirement saving system.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/pl...z1smCBeBwu </div></div>

Hi Martin,

You are saying it's "The Feds" but isn't this a plan being pushed by Republicans?

As if the Bush Tax cuts weren't doing enough damage already with their skewed and unfair tax cuts, pushing more money to the top one percent, and starving everyone else?

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/04/13/opinion/sunday/0415web-leonhardt2.html?ref=business </div></div>

Gayle in MD
04-30-2012, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dont you know everything you think you own is government property.

Good thing Obama has outspent Bush in 3 1/2 years to create this booming recovery. </div></div>

Bush's spending, borrowing and revenue losses due to his policies are still the greatest part of our deficit.

By the time you add up his Prescription Drug Program, costs, the costs of his two wars, plus interest, plus medical costs due to our damaged Veterans, and add in the revenue losses from his Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest Among us, along with the costs of his bailout, Obama's spending in comparison, is a drop in the bucket.

Righties just don't want to acknowledge what all of the charts prove, or perhaps they just don't understand that Republicans have blocked every effort to remove costly policies of the Bush Administration, or factor in the amount of interest payments, which we pay, still, for Bush's spending.

Then there is the little issues of job losses, which we suffered due to Bush's overall policies, and the fact that we had to spend money to avoid The Bush Decession, which thanbk heaven, President Obama has managed to divert, and by that time, no rational person could venture to say that President Obama has outspent Bush.

One has to factor in how much of our current spending is in paying off Bush's debts with interest, having to spend also to honorably get out of his two mismanaged wars, which he put on our credit card, and which he left behind him when Americans let the door hit him in the A$$ on the day we finally got rid of him.

Again, no rational person could say that this president, is a bigger spender, than George Bush.


Let us not forget, Bush borrowed more money than all previous Administrations, combined.

Bush left behind more debt than any previous Administration.

Bush inherited a path to a total debt free America, unlike our current President, who was left with Bush's collapsed Economy.

When the Supreme Court of Republican Fascists, handed Bush the 2000 election, AFTER he lost the popular vote, and as RW activists, they threw out the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, and threw the election to Bush, THAT WAS THE MOST COSTLY EVENT THAT EVER OCCURED IN THIS COUNTRY TO DATE!

G.

Sid_Vicious
04-30-2012, 10:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dont you know everything you think you own is government property.

Good thing Obama has outspent Bush in 3 1/2 years to create this booming recovery. </div></div>

Bush's spending, borrowing and revenue losses due to his policies are still the greatest part of our deficit.

By the time you add up his Prescription Drug Program, costs, the costs of his two wars, plus interest, plus medical costs due to our damaged Veterans, and add in the revenue losses from his Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest Among us, along with the costs of his bailout, Obama's spending in comparison, is a drop in the bucket.

Righties just don't want to acknowledge what all of the charts prove, or perhaps they just don't understand that Republicans have blocked every effort to remove costly policies of the Bush Administration, or factor in the amount of interest payments, which we pay, still, for Bush's spending.

Then there is the little issues of job losses, which we suffered due to Bush's overall policies, and the fact that we had to spend money to avoid The Bush Decession, which thanbk heaven, President Obama has managed to divert, and by that time, no rational person could venture to say that President Obama has outspent Bush.

One has to factor in how much of our current spending is in paying off Bush's debts with interest, having to spend also to honorably get out of his two mismanaged wars, which he put on our credit card, and which he left behind him when Americans let the door hit him in the A$$ on the day we finally got rid of him.

Again, no rational person could say that this president, is a bigger spender, than George Bush.


Let us not forget, Bush borrowed more money than all previous Administrations, combined.

Bush left behind more debt than any previous Administration.

Bush inherited a path to a total debt free America, unlike our current President, who was left with Bush's collapsed Economy.

When the Supreme Court of Republican Fascists, handed Bush the 2000 election, AFTER he lost the popular vote, and as RW activists, they threw out the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, and threw the election to Bush, THAT WAS THE MOST COSTLY EVENT THAT EVER OCCURED IN THIS COUNTRY TO DATE!

G.

</div></div>

Narcissism

Soflasnapper
04-30-2012, 11:10 AM
Dont you know everything you think you own is government property.

Well, on your house property title, it lists you as a tenant. So that might be true as to real estate at least. And as we know, if you do not pay the real estate tax, they seize your property out from under you to sell to get that tax. Almost like a rent right there.

Good thing Obama has outspent Bush in 3 1/2 years to create this booming recovery.

I think you mean to reference the growth of the debt being compared in those two time frames, not the spending. It's not that O has overseen that much more spending-- it's the lack of revenues, mostly, from the reduced employment situation. And unlike other recoveries, this one has seen about a 900,000 decrease in overall government employment, whereas Reagan's and all other recoveries in the meantime had increased government employment.

LWW
04-30-2012, 11:51 AM
Meanwhile where the air is thick:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

</div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://http://www.workforce.com/article/20081016/NEWS01/310169987)

Soflasnapper
04-30-2012, 12:11 PM
Average earners get to put away up to $3,000 a year, tax deferred, in an IRA, if they can afford to fund it in a given year. Top earners can shelter up to $45,000 a year, tax deferred, as in an ESOP.

An average homeowner gets the value of deducting mortgage interest of maybe whatever a $150k mortgage's interest may be (approx. $7,500 a year, saving maybe $1,500 in taxes @ 20% marginal rate). The top earners can deduct interest for two of their homes, one of which may be their yacht, currently allowed up to $1 million in interest, each, iirc. (saving about $700k in taxes @ 35% marginal rate, each year).

The societal interest in having such deductions is to encourage people to save for retirement, and to encourage home ownership. The top earners do not need a subsidy to do these things. But to be fair, let them have THE SAME SUBSIDY as the more middle earners do, exactly the same amount of money for these things. Which is to say, cap off their allowable deductions at the middle class levels.

Do this same thing-- capping off subsidies and benefits-- for the COLAs for higher government retirees. Let their stipends go up by the same COLA figure an average retiree's would go up by, only on the amount the typical retiree receives. That is, the COLA increase would only apply on the first $20k or so.

In other words, means test and limit these benefits. Not full means testing, which would eliminate these benefits entirely at a certain threshold of income. But capping off the benefits to the higher brackets at some median benefit level that would apply to most people.

Soflasnapper
04-30-2012, 12:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Meanwhile where the air is thick:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

</div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://http://www.workforce.com/article/20081016/NEWS01/310169987) </div></div>

Yes, the air was thicker back in late 2008, where your broken link goes if you fix the html in it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> October 16, 2008

Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive. </div></div>

But the clues were already there, as the Democrats are not the chairman of anything in the House, and certainly none of them are powerful, the way the majority rule of the House works.

The GOP caucus, and particularly the tail wagging that dog, the TParty caucus, does not take recommendations from House Democrats very seriously.

Why would you link to an out of date by nearly 4 years news piece to show the Democrats are the responsible ones in this case, and then supply a broken link for that claim?

Or did I just answer my own question?

LWW
04-30-2012, 02:25 PM
To show that the regime I behind this.

LWW
04-30-2012, 02:29 PM
BTW ... why didn't it bother you that Fats link was dead?

What's that?

You never question anything that blames someone else for the treachery of the regime?

But ... I already knew that.

LWW
04-30-2012, 02:43 PM
Since experience has taught me that there is zero chance of you actually researching this on your own, I present you with another ... of many links on that google thingie that you really should check into ... piece of evidence showing that this robbery has long been a leftist wet dream:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.”

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes.”

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.”

All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Another justification for Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan.” She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.”

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor, followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the “government” was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and “self” first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.”

Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said.

“Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,” Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.”

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.

Miller’s biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of “killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.”

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes” by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. “Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression,” Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

“The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.

</div></div>

FACTS ... they are such stubborn things. (http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/dems-target-private-retirement-accounts.html)

DiabloViejo
04-30-2012, 03:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW ... why didn't it bother you that Fats link was dead?</div></div>

Thanks for the heads up! Here, I fixed it for you: NY POST (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/plunder_CrD9s6MElVsEIJj2IVgHuK)

Anything else I can do for you, LWW, Johnny, Secaucus Fatty, Sybil? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Sev
04-30-2012, 04:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dont you know everything you think you own is government property.

Good thing Obama has outspent Bush in 3 1/2 years to create this booming recovery. </div></div>

Bush's spending, borrowing and revenue losses due to his policies are still the greatest part of our deficit.

By the time you add up his Prescription Drug Program, costs, the costs of his two wars, plus interest, plus medical costs due to our damaged Veterans, and add in the revenue losses from his Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest Among us, along with the costs of his bailout, Obama's spending in comparison, is a drop in the bucket.

Righties just don't want to acknowledge what all of the charts prove, or perhaps they just don't understand that Republicans have blocked every effort to remove costly policies of the Bush Administration, or factor in the amount of interest payments, which we pay, still, for Bush's spending.

Then there is the little issues of job losses, which we suffered due to Bush's overall policies, and the fact that we had to spend money to avoid The Bush Decession, which thanbk heaven, President Obama has managed to divert, and by that time, no rational person could venture to say that President Obama has outspent Bush.

One has to factor in how much of our current spending is in paying off Bush's debts with interest, having to spend also to honorably get out of his two mismanaged wars, which he put on our credit card, and which he left behind him when Americans let the door hit him in the A$$ on the day we finally got rid of him.

Again, no rational person could say that this president, is a bigger spender, than George Bush.


Let us not forget, Bush borrowed more money than all previous Administrations, combined.

Bush left behind more debt than any previous Administration.

Bush inherited a path to a total debt free America, unlike our current President, who was left with Bush's collapsed Economy.

When the Supreme Court of Republican Fascists, handed Bush the 2000 election, AFTER he lost the popular vote, and as RW activists, they threw out the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, and threw the election to Bush, THAT WAS THE MOST COSTLY EVENT THAT EVER OCCURED IN THIS COUNTRY TO DATE!

G.

</div></div>

The blame Bush shtick is getting old.
"The Boy Who Cried Wolf" seems appropriate.

Reagan, both Bush's and Clinton all managed to lead in the face of opposition.

That Obama cant is further proof of his incompetence.

Soflasnapper
04-30-2012, 05:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW ... why didn't it bother you that Fats link was dead?

What's that?

You never question anything that blames someone else for the treachery of the regime?

But ... I already knew that. </div></div>

If you mean **SID'S** link, yes, I noticed it was broken. The NY Times' link was not broken, and when I looked around there for a while at those numbers, I was distracted.

But I try always to remember to look at your links, to see what wool is there you've tried to pull over our eyes. That's from experience, LOL!

Soflasnapper
04-30-2012, 05:23 PM
The blame Bush shtick is getting old.
"The Boy Who Cried Wolf" seems appropriate.

Reagan, both Bush's and Clinton all managed to lead in the face of opposition.

Yes, but let's remember, as Obama said at the WHCD, it was George W. Bush who started this trend! (Of course, that was a joke involving irony, LOL! I didn't think the room particularly got that joke, however.)

But actually, you should go back and reference what Reagan said often about Carter's responsibility for his problems, and how he campaigned against Mondale by campaigning against Carter. Really, he did, and it's on the record.

LWW
05-01-2012, 03:26 AM
Ready to admit that raiding private pensions is a leftist idea?

DiabloViejo
05-01-2012, 03:28 AM
Ready to admit you need psychiatric help? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LWW
05-01-2012, 03:41 AM
I am psychiatric help.

That you refuse it is your own choice.

DiabloViejo
05-01-2012, 03:43 AM
You am psychiatric help? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Have another shot of booze, loser!

LWW
05-01-2012, 04:00 AM
Why do you so lovingly embrace lies?

DiabloViejo
05-01-2012, 04:02 AM
You mean lies like using multiple user names to spread BS? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LWW
05-01-2012, 04:06 AM
I knew woodie and switch did that. Are you doing it as well?

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 04:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dont you know everything you think you own is government property.

Good thing Obama has outspent Bush in 3 1/2 years to create this booming recovery. </div></div>

Bush's spending, borrowing and revenue losses due to his policies are still the greatest part of our deficit.

By the time you add up his Prescription Drug Program, costs, the costs of his two wars, plus interest, plus medical costs due to our damaged Veterans, and add in the revenue losses from his Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest Among us, along with the costs of his bailout, Obama's spending in comparison, is a drop in the bucket.

Righties just don't want to acknowledge what all of the charts prove, or perhaps they just don't understand that Republicans have blocked every effort to remove costly policies of the Bush Administration, or factor in the amount of interest payments, which we pay, still, for Bush's spending.

Then there is the little issues of job losses, which we suffered due to Bush's overall policies, and the fact that we had to spend money to avoid The Bush Decession, which thanbk heaven, President Obama has managed to divert, and by that time, no rational person could venture to say that President Obama has outspent Bush.

One has to factor in how much of our current spending is in paying off Bush's debts with interest, having to spend also to honorably get out of his two mismanaged wars, which he put on our credit card, and which he left behind him when Americans let the door hit him in the A$$ on the day we finally got rid of him.

Again, no rational person could say that this president, is a bigger spender, than George Bush.


Let us not forget, Bush borrowed more money than all previous Administrations, combined.

Bush left behind more debt than any previous Administration.

Bush inherited a path to a total debt free America, unlike our current President, who was left with Bush's collapsed Economy.

When the Supreme Court of Republican Fascists, handed Bush the 2000 election, AFTER he lost the popular vote, and as RW activists, they threw out the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, and threw the election to Bush, THAT WAS THE MOST COSTLY EVENT THAT EVER OCCURED IN THIS COUNTRY TO DATE!

G.

</div></div>

The blame Bush shtick is getting old.
"The Boy Who Cried Wolf" seems appropriate.

Reagan, both Bush's and Clinton all managed to lead in the face of opposition.

That Obama cant is further proof of his incompetence.



</div></div>

LMAO, that's a good one, since George Bush and Dick Cheney and Condi Rice did nothing BUT cry wolf, for eight years! Meanwhile, they weren't even looking for The Wolf!

"I don't know where he is. He's hiding. I don't think about him."

Now, of course, all but the deniers know all about who they were, and what they did, and it was shameful, through and through, and hence, Bush, Cheney and Rice, have very low approvals.

It isn't shtick at all. The President IS leading the country, away from failed Republican Policies. The same policies that drove this country straight into a debt ditch, and took money from everyone, to give it all to the wealthy few, who buy them their elections!

The President's accomplishment have been amazing, given he had had to deal with unprecedented Republican Obstructionism throughout.

Now, the actual smut of Republican Agenda has all been exposed in a new book, which tells a very grim story about the Republicans for Special Interests and the wealthy few at the top. It's quite a tale of mafia tactics, all in all. Taking numbers and giving names about just who met at a ritzy Washington DC Restaurant to lay out their plan for TOTAL obstructionism, on the very night that our nation was celebrating the beginning of the Obama Administration., and we now have the exact game plan which reveals the whole story of Republican un-American Activities. A shameful tale indeed.


I think most Americans understand that when Republicans planned to block our recovery, for political gain, Republicans said, SCREW this country, and all who are suffering and teetering on the brink, WE Republicans only care about a political win, sucking up to our wealth top few, insuring them even more wealth, on the backs of everyone else, so we will OBSTRUCT everything that aids anyone but the wealthy few, and slow the recovery as much as we can, even though our own policies, led to all off the current disastrous consequences that most Americans are facing at this time, SCREW 'EM! then, they went right out and hung themselves, with their own unconscionable VOTES, which we can track. Indusputable PROOF!

Clearly, no other president ever faced such total obstructionism, because as many former Republicans, who have left the Republican Party, so often tell us, The Republican Party is now unrecognizable. It is a party of radical extremists, who believe the end, winning back the White House, justifies the slimey means, even when that requires that their goal to bring the nation's progress to a schreeching halt, cost us to lose our tripple A rating, throws millions of Middle Class workers out of work, pulls the food from the very mouths of hungry children, launch war on women, Hispanics, college kids, removing financial aid for everyone, to give more away to the very wealthy, and they have made all of it so chrystal clear, even the flyovers are waking up. Oh, and BTW, I think I predicted thay would paint themselves stright into this corner by the Tea Party Zealots.

But they didn't stop at that, their fellow Republicans on the Supreme Court, have set about to destroy the Constitution, and democracy, radical RW Activist judges, some of them as owned by the wealthy few, as the Repubs on The Hill, OWNED BY The Special Interests, of wealth and corruption, OWNED BY those who bought and paid for the seats of the Tea Party Zealots on The Hill.

OWNED!

G.