Skip to comments.President Bush Mortgage Speech 2002(Helping those w bad credit buy houses)
Posted on 05/01/2009 8:51:06 PM PDT by sickoflibs
click here to read article
Bush substantially increased the per child tax deduction amount so you benefited from that even if your overall income went up beyond that.
Your taxes would have been much higher under Gore, Kerry and now Obama.
Thanks. I had trouble following your comment.
Yep, Bush promoted single-Mom-hood, Why? It was a Rove strategy. “No Child left.... with vouchers.” He betrayed us with NCLB. He gave tax credits to single Moms.
Yes, your friend Obama does not promote single motherhood.
he promotes abortion— something you must adore.
Oh I want to be your spectacle.
I know ridicule is a foundation of the Left’s rationality.
Let’s be clear that you could not post the speech unedited. You had to post your own inaccurate subtexts into the speech.
You have yet to win an argument on Bush and so you hope that appealing to some sense of ridicule will back me off.
You keep bumping my post. Thanks.
I will agree that’s true but it was unnoticable in my federal contribution during those years and remains worthless to me now. The larger tax cuts Bush did enact were not applicable to me, thus were of no value to me.
I am sure my taxes will continue to go up now that I am expected to pay the mortgages of those too stupid to read their mortgage agreement and put effort into understanding the conditions set forth therein, followed by Obama’s and that shrill ‘tard Pelosi’s bailing out of those bankers and finance world self-titled gurus who lavished exorbitant pay and bonuses on themselves.
Yeah, I’m sure the soaking of this little ole single mom is far from done. And as much as I try to be my own cheerleader pushing myself through yet another doubleshift day, I can tell you this, I am just about sapped and I am pissed off at ALL of them.
You are so welcome.
I am studying your posts and Schiff.
Its good to see that others have tried to reason with you as well.
Your odd fixation on Bush is hard to understand since it does not seem to be a fixation of Schiff’s.
Regardless of personal anger, politics is about discerning lesser evils.
Republicans have always been the lesser evil.
The peculiar fixation on conflating Republican and democrats is not helpful.
Advocating for more conservative Republicans or more expansive tax cuts is legitimate and compelling argument.
pretending they are all the same is not and has the effect of promoting the current overwhelming dominance of the democratic party in the American public sphere.
RE :”Its good to see that others have tried to reason with you as well.”
Nothing as nutty as you.
You missed my recent: Peter Schiff Wall Street Unspun 4-29-09 (Republicans in power act like Democrats)
Schiff: "Where was Dick Armey when George Bush was promoting economic stimulus? Where was Dick Armey when George Bush was blaming the crisis on Wall Street? Where was Dick Armey when George Bush was proposing the bailouts and stimulus plans? It really aggravates me that the only time the republicans can say the truth, the only time they have any principles is when their in the minority, when they cant do anything. When they are actually in control and have power they govern like democrats. Its only when theyre out of power that they talk about the free market, that they sound like what they campaigned for. It makes me more aggravated at the republicans than the democrats. Maybe the democrats are just dumb; maybe they dont know any better. But obviously the republicans know. But when the republicans are in power they deliberately dont say anything. Its like as long as republicans are in the minority theyre OK, theyre fine. You can just never put them in the majority because they act like democrats."
Your substantive claims are overwhelming.
Its good for you to choose a quotation that you think indicates substance to provide something of an actual argument target.
Schiff is clearly wrong in this paragraph.
The fiscal conservatism that you seem to demand and seems to be in Schiff’s mind was obtained when Republicans came to a congressional majority in 1994. Republicans began to lose seats again in 1998 when they pressed to shut down the federal government at the nadir of their fiscal conservatism. The demise of republicans in the late 90s laid the ground work for Bush’s compassionate conservatism.
Republicans have not governed with much of an eye for fiscal conservatism since 2001 but this is a function of being defeated in the late 1990s for seeking cuts in federal spending. Demorats easily portrayed them as hating the poor, education and almost any other social idea you can imagine.
The primary problem is the senate where the concept of RINO is powerfully entrenched and democrats stand to gain more seats in 2010.
There is simply a painful gap in idealism and practical alternatives for many fiscal conservatives.
Blaming Bush won’t get you there.
RE “Schiff is clearly wrong in this paragraph”
He is talking about YOU. To you socialism is OK if Bush is president, if a democrat does it that is horrible, That is you! Schiff has you pegged, You have no values, only loyalty.
I'm sorry. I don't subscribe to this theory. Choosing that which is less wrong, but is still wrong, is not something I am willing to lower my standards to. Quite honestly, I deeply believe both parties have betrayed both this nation and the foundational ideals it was built upon, and are not salvagable.
I've enjoyed our talk though. Thanks for reaching out to me. Indeed, sometimes I am so fed up with it all, I let my frustration color my statements.
Shelby Balks At Fund For Housing - Stance Could Complicate Fannie-Freddie Oversight, June 17, 2005; Page D04
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) has come out against a proposal to divert a portion of the profits of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pay for affordable housing, a committee spokesman said yesterday, perhaps undermining Democratic support for legislation to strengthen oversight of the two companies.
Committee spokesman Andrew Gray said Shelby is concerned about any program that would "encourage" the companies to take on more risk, as they have done in recent years by expanding their investment portfolios to make more money.
Well, no one here is insisting "total blame" be placed on Bush.
There is plenty of blame to go around, of which he deserves a healthy portion.
because most mortgages involve government backing such as FHA. You seem to stick to purist absolutism as if we are debating philosophy rather than politics. If all loans lacked government support there would be few people owning homes.
So you think a proper role of government is to give $$$$ for down payments on homes to low income people?
Both programs were crap. Both should have been dismissed.
Markets work -- if you let them!