Bush faults Democrats on housing crisis, energy and taxes

Pudintain wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you even read this report? Saddam met with the 9/11 mastermind a week before 9/11. There was money exchanged. It is not a right or left thing, it is in Saddam's intel reports. You just refuse to acknowledge it. I studied these reports for months and still am. There no other evidence that is as authentic as this.
And more taxes= more gov. spending.
More taxes=less money in my pocket.
Also we spend more money in one year on liberal programs like welfare, food stamps and unemployment than on the increase in military spending since the war.
I get sick thinking that my hard earned money goes to my neighbor that can drink a case of beer a day but can not work.

I didn't read it, sorry. There is so much going on that it is hard to sift through. Did Bush know before hand? And if so, we should have gone after Saddam Hussein right after 9/11. Bush had intelligence on an impending attack one month before and did nothing. Rumsfeld created the office of special plans to bring up cooked up information. We went into Afghanistan right after 9/11 and had Osama Bin Laden trapped and Rumsfeld screwed that one up. At first on going to Iraq it was WMD. Then it was terrorism a year or two after we went in. So I don't know. Whatever the case it was ideology that has driven this administration. The White House was full of neo-cons.

As far as the economy, the republicans were in office for 6 years and did nothing in fixing any programs. This war will cost us trillions. I don't like welfare either, but there is nothing Bush has done. We have had tax cuts all these years and we are heading to a recession. The debt has gone from 5.6 trillion dollars to over 10 trillion when Bush leaves. That 5.6 trillion was since the beginning of this country. Bush will double that in 8 years. We have 400 billion dollar deficits and a worthless dollar. There is nothing done for our future. Our infrastructure is neglected, programs need to be fixed, our military is stretched thin. We are more dependent on oil and one month ago Bush said he did not know oil was going 4 dollars a gallon. Bush is brain dead. He will leave this whole mess to the next person. This was a wasted 8 years. This country is broke as we borrow more and more from China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.

Anyway, time to go. Gotta catch a plane.

Pudintain wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you even rea.....I get sick thinking that my hard earned money goes to my neighbor that can drink a case of beer a day but can not work.

I don't know about other states, but in Oklahoma we have not had that kind of welfare for a long time that I know of.

The federal government has WIC; Women with Infants and Children. It provides for healthcare and nutrition of low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants and children under the age of five. The idea is that providing basic need to children will actually save the state money in the long run. The old, "Ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure" thing. I’m sure it gets abused but the idea seems sound.

AFDC is what a lot of people think of when they think of welfare. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was passed in 1996 and as a result Aid to Families with Dependent Children ended in 1997 and replaced with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families which has a 5 year lifetime cap.

Am I missing something? Is there a long term ‘something for nothing’ program that is available to men and women with no women over 5? I’m not messing with you, I’m asking for real.

Gerry wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't read it, sorry. There is so much going on that it is hard to sift through. Did Bush know before hand? And if so, we should have gone after Saddam Hussein right after 9/11. Bush had intelligence on an impending attack one month before and did nothing. Rumsfeld created the office of special plans to bring up cooked up information. We went into Afghanistan right after 9/11 and had Osama Bin Laden trapped and Rumsfeld screwed that one up. At first on going to Iraq it was WMD. Then it was terrorism a year or two after we went in. So I don't know. Whatever the case it was ideology that has driven this administration. The White House was full of neo-cons.
As far as the economy, the republicans were in office for 6 years and did nothing in fixing any programs. This war will cost us trillions. I don't like welfare either, but there is nothing Bush has done. We have had tax cuts all these years and we are heading to a recession. The debt has gone from 5.6 trillion dollars to over 10 trillion when Bush leaves. That 5.6 trillion was since the beginning of this country. Bush will double that in 8 years. We have 400 billion dollar deficits and a worthless dollar. There is nothing done for our future. Our infrastructure is neglected, programs need to be fixed, our military is stretched thin. We are more dependent on oil and one month ago Bush said he did not know oil was going 4 dollars a gallon. Bush is brain dead. He will leave this whole mess to the next person. This was a wasted 8 years. This country is broke as we borrow more and more from China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
Anyway, time to go. Gotta catch a plane.

No these intel reports where captured after the invasion. We knew he had ties, that was released in the coming to war.

Florian wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know about other states, but in Oklahoma we have not had that kind of welfare for a long time that I know of.
The federal government has WIC; Women with Infants and Children. It provides for healthcare and nutrition of low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants and children under the age of five. The idea is that providing basic need to children will actually save the state money in the long run. The old, "Ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure" thing. I’m sure it gets abused but the idea seems sound.
AFDC is what a lot of people think of when they think of welfare. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was passed in 1996 and as a result Aid to Families with Dependent Children ended in 1997 and replaced with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families which has a 5 year lifetime cap.
Am I missing something? Is there a long term ‘something for nothing’ program that is available to men and women with no women over 5? I’m not messing with you, I’m asking for real.

Here is a quick overview:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15fsfypart.htm

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fspmain.htm

Florian wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know about other states, but in Oklahoma we have not had that kind of welfare for a long time that I know of.
The federal government has WIC; Women with Infants and Children. It provides for healthcare and nutrition of low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants and children under the age of five. The idea is that providing basic need to children will actually save the state money in the long run. The old, "Ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure" thing. I’m sure it gets abused but the idea seems sound.
AFDC is what a lot of people think of when they think of welfare. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was passed in 1996 and as a result Aid to Families with Dependent Children ended in 1997 and replaced with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families which has a 5 year lifetime cap.
Am I missing something? Is there a long term ‘something for nothing’ program that is available to men and women with no women over 5? I’m not messing with you, I’m asking for real.

This is the best, it has doubled in the last 10 years.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34fsmonthly.htm

Costs a little more than our war.

Pudintain wrote:

<quoted text>
This is the best, it has doubled in the last 10 years.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34fsmonthly.htm
Costs a little more than our war.

Ok, but isn't that saying that the average monthly benifit per person is $100.00? Or am I reading it wrong?

What are the requirments to receive that $110 a month? I also wonder what it says that 27m people meet those requirements?

Pudintain wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is a quick overview:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15fsfypart.htm
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fspmain.htm

I'm not thinking that Food Stamps are what most people think of when they think of welfare. I will grant you that the Food Stamp program is probably the closest thing remaining to outright welfare, yes.

I did miss that BTW, when I was trying to figure what was left after the reforms of 1996-7. It was not an intentional oversite.

Taxes: Opposition to keeping them low

Gas Prices: Opposition and successful legislation to prevent New Efferent refinery construction and Oil expiration
Results inevitably in either fixed or finite supply against an always growing demand.= Higher prices

Housing: encouragement of Mortgage lone to high risk people during the 1990's resulting in high default rate when the economy recovered resulting in higher interest rates on the lone was triggering the defaults.
Mortgages are long term things, partially if you don’t have the money to pay them in the first place.

So yes its demonstrate able that democrats and liberals are responsible in either someway or almost entirely for all of theses things.
I know that sounds crazy, but so is the combination, and their legislative and executive action in the past.

All of which was no doubt “well intentioned” and I can even explained the intentions:

On Taxes: they feel government should be the arbitrator of your money not you, because your selfish and wont pay their lazy Constituencies to vote for them.

On Gas prices: They feel the environment is more important and is somehow harmed by the production and uses of Gasoline and that that end is more important than your wallet book, therefore they feel that government needs to regulate this to keep it under control.

On Housing: they feel that Low income people should be able to buy a houses that they really cant afford, so Clinton Push thou tax laws and otherwise encouragement for banks and otherwise to embark on giving theses people loners. To buy such houses, Mortgages. The nature of theses people being otherwise unable to buy theses houses, made them High risk, and resulted in them defaulting when Interest Rate on what they owed exceeded what they could pay. That of course happened when the economy recovered, as interest rates go up with the economy in general, AFTER the end of the Clinton Recession following the Tech Bubble bust, in 2000.

Monorprise wrote:

Taxes: Opposition to keeping them low.....h the economy in general, AFTER the end of the Clinton Recession following the Tech Bubble bust, in 2000.

The Republican Party is not all one thing. There is not one issue that all Republicans agree. Since the GOP does adopt platforms, it is true to say that the Republican Party has one policy or another. Even so, there are times when Representatives or Senators will cross party lines and vote with in opposition to the party line. Any statement that "Republicans do this or that .... " is probably not correct. That is why I am trying to use the term "Republicans" less and less.

The Democratic Party is not all one thing. There is not one issue that all Republicans agree. Since the GOP does adopt platforms, it is true to say that the Democratic Party has one policy or another. Even so, there are times when Representatives or Senators will cross party lines and vote with in opposition to the party line. Any statement that "Democrats do this or that .... " is probably not correct.

In macroeconomics, a recession is generally associated with a decline in a country's real gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year. By that definition there is now a recession, Bush Recession 2. The history of the previous four recessions is as follows;

Bush (43)- March 2001-November 2001: 8 months (worst quarter GDP Growth -1.4%)(term of office January 20, 2001 – present)

Bush (41)- July 1990-March 1991: 8 months (worst quarter GDP Growth -3.0%)(term of office January 20, 1989 – January 19, 1993)

Regan - July 1981-November 1982: 16 months (worst quarter GDP Growth -6.4%)(term of office January 20, 1981 – January 19, 1989)

Carter - January-July 1980: 6 months (worst quarter GDP Growth -7.8%)(term of office January 20, 1977 – January 19, 1981)

Ranking the recessions by severity starting with the worst; Carter, Regan, Bush 41, Bush 43. It remains to be seen how severe the present recession will be.

The 2001 recession did not involve two consecutive quarters of decline, and is therefore considered by some to not have been an actual recession.

How exactly one assigns assign recessions? I have done so strictly. If one starts defining recessions in the first year of office to the previous president it gets slippery. The Bush (41) recession becomes the second Regan recession, and the first Regan recession becomes the second Carter recession, and so forth. What is important is that whatever deviations are made are applied universally. If one simply wants to take partisan advantage, the argument would never end.

During the period March 1991 to March 2001, the U.S. experienced the longest economic expansion in it’s history - 120 months. Presidents Bush (41) and President Clinton were in office during this period.

So as far as President Clinton and the economy goes, it is clear that we enjoyed a very large period of sustained growth during his administration, and that the recession that occurred soon after his departure from office was so small that by some definitions it was not a recession at all.

para 2 should read:

The Republican Party is not all one thing. There is not one issue that all Republicans agree on. Since the GOP does adopt platforms, it is true to say that the Republican Party has one policy or another. Even so, there are times when Representatives or Senators will cross party lines and vote with in opposition to the party line. Any statement that "Republicans do this or that .... " is probably not correct. That is why I am trying to use the term "Republicans" less and less.

The Democratic Party is not all one thing. There is not one issue that all Democrats agree on. Since the Democratic Party does adopt platforms, it is true to say that the Democratic Party has one policy or another. Even so, there are times when Representatives or Senators will cross party lines and vote with in opposition to the party line. Any statement that "Democrats do this or that .... " is probably not correct.

sorry for that

death and taxes wrote:

Different year, same blame game !

truth hurts to hear the dem, have been screwing the american people with high oil prices to save a frog or so.

Monorprise wrote:

......
I know that sounds crazy,.....

If you know yourself that something sounds crazy, perhaps you should reconsider saying it.

Pudintain wrote:

I doesn't mater if you like George or not you have to admit that if there was more supply there would be lower fuel prices. It is economics 101. You Democrats need to push you leadership on this. We have enough oil on our land to last over 60 years. If Clinton would not have vetoed the ANWAR bill there would billions more barrels of oil today.

nice call!!! although Democrats will never admit they are wrong,and im sure they dont understand they messed this country up,as they have no economic sense when it comes to energy.

eric wrote:

<quoted text>nice call!!! although Democrats will never admit they are wrong,and im sure they dont understand they messed this country up,as they have no economic sense when it comes to energy.

Look up two posts.

Making the claim that Republicans can do nothing but good and Democrats can do nothing but wrong is an unreasonable position.

If that were true, how do you explain Larry Craig?

Florian wrote:

<quoted text>
....
In macroeconomics, a recession is generally associated with a decline in a country's real gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year.
...

Playing with words does not change the situation that did exist which maintained low interest rates for a prolonged period of time, whether you call it a Recession or not.
Insolently at the time, it was generally refer to as a recession. An act that in itself makes that word predisposes towards being applied in reference to the situation of the time.

Reason:(people have memories of time span to which they reference terms to, other people seeking to reference that time in their memory must themselves use the term most people associated with it, regardless of whether that term is technically correct or not.)
If you want to quibble about that, we will continue to get off topic.
The situation of the time remains appropriately relevant regardless of what label you put on it.

PS: Nice crop job on my quote leaving out the relevant Data for your complaint.

Florian wrote:

<quoted text>
If you know yourself that something sounds crazy, perhaps you should reconsider saying it.

I did, and upon full consideration which in included research and careful thought, I deemed it remained necessary to point say.

There is a critical difference between how something sounds and how it is.
For example: Many of Obama’s promises and “plans” sound nice and good, but in reality they are in themselves quite devoid of detailed planning, and merely statements of broad objectives.

Florian wrote:

<quoted text>
Look up two posts.
Making the claim that Republicans can do nothing but good and Democrats can do nothing but wrong is an unreasonable position.
If that were true, how do you explain Larry Craig?

This basic Tenant of nature is not in disputed.

But to list the names of all those responsible for the bad in this particular area, would be too extensive to post as well as read.
Needless to say, in the oil and immigration area, Republicans are quite upset with John McCain on this as well.
There is not a pretences that all Democrats have been wrong, merely the fact that Most all of them in theses areas have been wrong. Along with a small number of Republicans (like McCain) who have joined them.

I tend to agree that being specific is very important, But I cannot fail to acknowledge that it is often not very practical when the situation calls to address a large spectrum of people that constitute the relent bodies,(State legislators, U.S. Congress, ect..)

So the "Decider" has decided to blame the Democrats,with their slim majority for the ills of the Country; those that magically appeared immediately after the 2006 elections, which is about the same time he finally found his veto pen, one which had been completely lost for the previous 6 years. Well my friends, you can call a dog a frog but you can't make him hop.

Monorprise wrote:

As strange as it sounds, it is the Democrats in control of both house of congress that have the only control over theses things government does have.
Presidents can’t make laws, nor can they repeal laws already made, nor do they control taxes.
To be quiet frank with you a president’s power’s are practically non-existents in all such areas.
And if you want to be HONEST and FAIR bush has been Telling you this was coming senses 2000. he’s been practical screaming at congress every state of the union we have to drill we have to build more refineries, our supply and energy supply is going to be compromised.
Congress chooses to do nonthing, because of its antiroyalist sections encompassing the entirety of the Democratic Party and significant portions of the republican party.
The current congress just as the last congress had all the power and more importantly WARNING in the world to fix this, and again it has still chosen not to.
If you want to fault Bush for this, that’s your choice, but it won’t do anyone any good.
It certainly won’t make or allow gas prices ever go down. Lol if anything it will empower the very people in congress who are at fault to keep doing what they are doing, just as it has been. Ever notest how ALL the presidential candid’s are of that same group?
By Bashing bush you have effetely empowered them, you left us with no political solution to this problem.
You left the environmental law Oil Bottle neck securely in place. And the price you pay is going to continue to get worse, because of it.

Well, Bush has proved over and over that his use of Executive Orders to "make law" and bypass Congress on issues. If he really believes what he says about oil independence, declare that it is in the best interest of the national security of the Country, sign the Executive Order and break out the drill bit. But, that may lower the price of oil which would hurt a lot of buddies. It's all a bunch of lip service, or Executive Order Number whatever would be signed, sealed and delivered.

Guitar Picker wrote:

So the "Decider" has decided to blame the Democrats,with their slim majority for the ills of the Country; those that magically appeared immediately after the 2006 elections, which is about the same time he finally found his veto pen, one which had been completely lost for the previous 6 years. Well my friends, you can call a dog a frog but you can't make him hop.

Again, its quite simple, The Republican majority was practically just as slim before hand. The difference is a small number of Republicans including McCain and his gang which joined the democrats in this endeavor.

If the democrats wish to fix this problem only a small portion of them would have to join with the remaining republicans to have done so long ago that’s the point.

The Only name I can give you “the Decider” as you so aptly put him, was in fact right on theses issues, he had in fact been pushing and using all the elements at his disposal to do this for the last 8 years as president and had in fact been pointing this out along with many others even before that.
He can not therefore be held to blame, congress is. And the reason all of congress attempts to fix this have failed, is because of the Overwhelming majority of the democrats in it joined with a minority of republicans (like McCain) and stopped it.

So yes in practical terms that don’t involve listings the votes of all 525 house and Senate members and their votes and actions on this issue the democrats are to blame.

This is partially self-evident as their own Party’s Platform endorses the specific positions that are themselves to blame for creating theses problems.