The Bush Tax Cuts got us in this mess:

[freedombecki]

Kewl. Another Bush hating/blaming troll...

We just don't have enough of those...

The difference between a troll and a toadie is that the toadie will shill for a ridiculous amount (like 99%) of all the money. that way, when people give in to 35% higher than the government deserves (all that money had already been taxed before it was set aside for the estate's recipients), the toadies claim a 35% win of something that would have given their fellow toadies in congress nothing from people's estates.

It's not the government's money, what was already taxed. They already took all they could in that person's life. Why punish families inheriting the family business? The collateral of the business should be left to those who inherit it in the person's will. It's already been taxed roundly. Often when an owner die, the people running the business have to make their fair share of mistakes, just like the first owner did. They can't make any mistakes if they do not actually own the assets of the business.

The government destroys a lot of good businesses through inheritance taxes, and it doesn't run businesses well. Just look at the stress of businesses it expropriates from the private sector. Within a few weeks, nobody has a job because the business is not viable with the government cutting it up and giving it to businesses like solyndra that don't have a snowball's chance of making it because they are not competitive with similar businesses overseas.

Over time, as the government becomes owners, the need for war takes the government's eye off business and onto survival. Then over-endowed businesses with full government guarantees take the money and run someplace else, leaving the people with their debt burden.

I don't think the government should take anything away from heirs.

Fair is fair, and the government got its fair share in one way or another from taxing or exempting from tax an investment it needed at the time.

We need to take the nanny government to the shed and put nanny on a diet. Nannies do not survive in the event of colossal war takeovers in which a competitor sees people over-governed and decides to declare war on people who've never seen war nor known its fruits, or think it's some kind of a computer game and there's always a way for the good guys to win, declaring themselves the good guys, what could ever go wrong.

This government has taken on unsustainable goals and ends that have to come from a free market.

Putting government in charge of the market was an egregiously stupid thing to do and will bring the scourge of war to our front doors and do all the things to citizens only criminals would do before.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't think the government should take anything away from heirs.

but why should a man be allowed to give his kids an unfair advantage over others by leaving them his money or his values or his love or his genetic material or his work ethic. Isn't that why kids were to be raised in communes, in treasonous liberal la la land?

 

[Desperado]

The Bush tax cuts did not get us into trouble.
Illegal wars in the Mid East and Unbridled Spending got us into this mess.
Not to mention the bail outs of the Banks.
It really is simple.

a liberal will lack the IQ to know that the bailout money was paid back and prevented a depression

Interesting that you didn't mention the first two of my points.

I also see that you don't read the fine print or as they say the rest of the story.

All told, including dividend, interest and other payments, U.S. banks have repaid the government $211.5 billion under the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), the first phase of the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), according to a report Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog. That's more than the $204.9 billion the banks initially got under TARP.

$211.5 billion minus $204.9 billion equals profit, right?

But 48 percent of the banks that have repaid the CPP used money they'd gotten from other federal programs, according to the GAO report. Those programs include the Community Development Capital Initiative -- another TARP program -- and the Small Business Lending Fund, a program designed to encourage lending to small businesses. Both of those programs have more favorable borrowing terms for the banks than the original CPP.

This isn't a new issue -- The Wall Street Journal reported last October that banks were repaying TARP funds with cash earmarked for small-business loans, after the Independent Community Bankers of America lobbied for the ability to switch money "from one Treasury program to the other."

Small businesses have continued to struggle to get credit, a drag on the recovery, while banks have been using funds earmarked for lending to small businesses simply to pay back their first TARP bailout.

Banks Repaid Fed Bailout With Other Fed Money: Government Report

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A tax gets at the lazy money, borrowing siphons off the hungry money. Of course you do point out the foolishness of saying tax cuts stimulate the economy when you turn around and borrow the money which has been true of tax cuts as far as I can remember.

Of course you do point out the foolishness of saying tax cuts stimulate the economy

But of course they do.

when you turn around and borrow the money which has been true of tax cuts as far as I can remember

Excellent point. We need huge spending cuts. Now.

Of course you do point out the foolishness of saying tax cuts stimulate the economy

But of course they do.

But it was you who made the point that they don't? how odd it is almost like you would take any excuss for a tax cut whiether it's a good ideal or not.

But it was you who made the point that they don't?

No I didn't. And you still haven't shown how taxing money out of the economy is better than borrowing it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Illegal wars in the Mid East and Unbridled Spending got us into this mess.

1) wars were not illegal which is why you have no evidence
2) liberals are responsible for unbridled spending and so against Balanced Budget Amendment
3) money is fungible so who cares how banks paid back government

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Bush tax cuts did not get us into trouble.
Illegal wars in the Mid East and Unbridled Spending got us into this mess.
Not to mention the bail outs of the Banks.
It really is simple.

a liberal will lack the IQ to know that the bailout money was paid back and prevented a depression

Interesting that you didn't mention the first two of my points.

I also see that you don't read the fine print or as they say the rest of the story.

All told, including dividend, interest and other payments, U.S. banks have repaid the government $211.5 billion under the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), the first phase of the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), according to a report Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog. That's more than the $204.9 billion the banks initially got under TARP.

$211.5 billion minus $204.9 billion equals profit, right?

But 48 percent of the banks that have repaid the CPP used money they'd gotten from other federal programs, according to the GAO report. Those programs include the Community Development Capital Initiative -- another TARP program -- and the Small Business Lending Fund, a program designed to encourage lending to small businesses. Both of those programs have more favorable borrowing terms for the banks than the original CPP.

This isn't a new issue -- The Wall Street Journal reported last October that banks were repaying TARP funds with cash earmarked for small-business loans, after the Independent Community Bankers of America lobbied for the ability to switch money "from one Treasury program to the other."

Small businesses have continued to struggle to get credit, a drag on the recovery, while banks have been using funds earmarked for lending to small businesses simply to pay back their first TARP bailout.

Banks Repaid Fed Bailout With Other Fed Money: Government Report

Meanwhile, there is still about $16.7 billion in original CPP money that hasn't been paid back

That's awful! Not as bad as the tens of billions we'll lose on the auto portion of TARP.

Or the hundred billion plus we'll lose on Fannie and Freddie.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

a liberal will lack the IQ to know that the bailout money was paid back and prevented a depression

Interesting that you didn't mention the first two of my points.

I also see that you don't read the fine print or as they say the rest of the story.

All told, including dividend, interest and other payments, U.S. banks have repaid the government $211.5 billion under the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), the first phase of the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), according to a report Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog. That's more than the $204.9 billion the banks initially got under TARP.

$211.5 billion minus $204.9 billion equals profit, right?

But 48 percent of the banks that have repaid the CPP used money they'd gotten from other federal programs, according to the GAO report. Those programs include the Community Development Capital Initiative -- another TARP program -- and the Small Business Lending Fund, a program designed to encourage lending to small businesses. Both of those programs have more favorable borrowing terms for the banks than the original CPP.

This isn't a new issue -- The Wall Street Journal reported last October that banks were repaying TARP funds with cash earmarked for small-business loans, after the Independent Community Bankers of America lobbied for the ability to switch money "from one Treasury program to the other."

Small businesses have continued to struggle to get credit, a drag on the recovery, while banks have been using funds earmarked for lending to small businesses simply to pay back their first TARP bailout.

Banks Repaid Fed Bailout With Other Fed Money: Government Report

Meanwhile, there is still about $16.7 billion in original CPP money that hasn't been paid back

That's awful! Not as bad as the tens of billions we'll lose on the auto portion of TARP.

Or the hundred billion plus we'll lose on Fannie and Freddie.

yes, how interesting that the liberals cry loudly about the bank bailouts that saved the economy and were paid back but say nothing about the goofy liberal Fan/Fred that won't pay back any of the $150 billlion bailout they got after causing this depression!!

 

[Desperado]

Illegal wars in the Mid East and Unbridled Spending got us into this mess.

1) wars were not illegal which is why you have no evidence
2) liberals are responsible for unbridled spending and so against Balanced Budget Amendment
3) money is fungible so who cares how banks paid back government

1. The wars were pre-emptive making them illegal.
2. Try again, there were times when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and did nothing. There were times when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and again did nothing. So your argument doesn't hold up.
3. When that money is diverted from other places that may have helped the economy.

BTW Fannie and Freddie should be eliminated. They are nothing but holes that money is thrown down and it is never seen again.

 

[regent]

I would suggest that the problem started with Reagan and Reagan's tripling of the national debt, even so we might have recovered, but standing on the sidelines was Bush and his trickle down and more tax cuts for the wealthy. It was a double whammy that we are still trying to get out of. In any case, so far we have not gone into a major catastrophe. But not to fear, Romney is standing by and the only economic plan he seems to have to offer is that he's rich.

 

[rdean]

The Bush Tax Cuts got us in this mess:

That was only the first of many, many "bad" Republican policies. Yet, they want to return to the good old days of "Bush".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1. The wars were pre-emptive making them illegal.

again, of course you have no evidence

2. Try again, there were times when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and did nothing. There were times when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and again did nothing. So your argument doesn't hold up.

too stupid!! Independents control the next election no matter who controls the 3 branches. Nevertheless 100% of the energy for a Balanced Budget Amendments comes from the Jeffersons Republican Party to the extend inpendents allow it. Over your head?

3. When that money is diverted from other places that may have helped the economy.

may have?? not as long as economy is too weak to make loans into it!

BTW Fannie and Freddie should be eliminated. They are nothing but holes that money is thrown down and it is never seen again.

good for you!!

 

[Desperado]

1. The wars were pre-emptive making them illegal.

again, of course you have no evidence

2. Try again, there were times when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and did nothing. There were times when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and again did nothing. So your argument doesn't hold up.

too stupid!! Independents control the next election no matter who controls the 3 branches. Nevertheless 100% of the energy for a Balanced Budget Amendments comes from the Jeffersons Republican Party to the extend inpendents allow it. Over your head?

3. When that money is diverted from other places that may have helped the economy.

may have?? not as long as economy is too weak to make loans into it!

BTW Fannie and Freddie should be eliminated. They are nothing but holes that money is thrown down and it is never seen again.

good for you!!

We will get no where discussing the legality of Pre-Emptive wars, so I will not even try but the cost of the wars in the Mid East have had a tremendous effect on our budget.
We are closing in on 10 years of military operations and are still spending hundred of millions a day in the region.
The second point we are not talking about the next election, we are talking about the good old days when the Republicans controlled everything. At that point, why did they not balance the budget?
Finally, the third point is that the Bailout and Tarp monies are still in question.
The is no such thing as too big to fail. If you fail, you should not expect the tax payers to bail your ass out.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We will get no where discussing the legality of Pre-Emptive wars,

especially since the is no evidence whatsoever and since a pre-emptive war would have prevented Pearl Harbor and 9/11

The second point we are not talking about the next election, we are talking about the good old days when the Republicans controlled everything. At that point, why did they not balance the budget?

very very simple!! Newt got killed when he introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment so Republicans having been laying low. How can that be over your head!! Same reason BO did not introduce single payer when he had super majority. Independents rule today , sadly, by deciding the next election.

Finally, the third point is that the Bailout and Tarp monies are still in question.
The is no such thing as too big to fail. If you fail, you should not expect the tax payers to bail your ass out.

obviously it far better to bail out some of the banks and get paid back than to have a depression.

 

[Desperado]

We will get no where discussing the legality of Pre-Emptive wars,

especially since the is no evidence whatsoever and since a pre-emptive war would have prevented Pearl Harbor and 9/11

The second point we are not talking about the next election, we are talking about the good old days when the Republicans controlled everything. At that point, why did they not balance the budget?

very very simple!! Newt got killed when he introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment so Republicans having been laying low. How can that be over your head!! Same reason BO did not introduce single payer when he had super majority. Independents rule today , sadly, by deciding the next election.

Finally, the third point is that the Bailout and Tarp monies are still in question.
The is no such thing as too big to fail. If you fail, you should not expect the tax payers to bail your ass out.

obviously it far better to bail out some of the banks and get paid back than to have a depression.

You asked what got us into this mess, Let's just say the cost of fighting the wars in the Middle East for over 10 years are a major part of the problem. Can we at least agree on that?
Moving on.... We agree that the Republicans were without any balls when they controlled both the House and the Senate.
Lastly, you maybe right but only time will tell. If the banks continue their policies and want another bailout, that would indicate that they have learned nothing and TARP was a failure, no matter if the money was paid back or not.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You asked what got us into this mess,

no I didn't!!!!

Let's just say the cost of fighting the wars in the Middle East for over 10 years are a major part of the problem. Can we at least agree on that?

no no no!! Liberals don't want to live within our means!! That is 100% of the problem!! That is why they have killed all 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson!!!!!

Moving on.... We agree that the Republicans were without any balls when they controlled both the House and the Senate.

you mean pragmatic given independents. Libertarians have balls as you say but are 1000% impotent and on the sidelines. Catching on now???

Lastly, you maybe right but only time will tell. If the banks continue their policies and want another bailout,

firstly not all banks wanted bailouts and 2) their policies no longer include goofy mortgages so what policies are you talking about if you know????

that would indicate that they have learned nothing and TARP was a failure, no matter if the money was paid back or not.

1) "that" what is that???????????????????/

2) many banks went bankrupt and many remain on the edge so they obviously have learned a great deal. Its in the very nature of capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We will get no where discussing the legality of Pre-Emptive wars,

especially since the is no evidence whatsoever and since a pre-emptive war would have prevented Pearl Harbor and 9/11



very very simple!! Newt got killed when he introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment so Republicans having been laying low. How can that be over your head!! Same reason BO did not introduce single payer when he had super majority. Independents rule today , sadly, by deciding the next election.

Finally, the third point is that the Bailout and Tarp monies are still in question.
The is no such thing as too big to fail. If you fail, you should not expect the tax payers to bail your ass out.

obviously it far better to bail out some of the banks and get paid back than to have a depression.

You asked what got us into this mess, Let's just say the cost of fighting the wars in the Middle East for over 10 years are a major part of the problem. Can we at least agree on that?
Moving on.... We agree that the Republicans were without any balls when they controlled both the House and the Senate.
Lastly, you maybe right but only time will tell. If the banks continue their policies and want another bailout, that would indicate that they have learned nothing and TARP was a failure, no matter if the money was paid back or not.

If the banks continue their policies and want another bailout, that would indicate that they have learned nothing and TARP was a failure, no matter if the money was paid back or not.

Are you kidding? Banks are afraid to write good mortgages, let alone bad ones.
As long as we don't let the government force them to make loans, they'll be fine.

 

[freedombecki]

I don't think the government should take anything away from heirs.

but why should a man be allowed to give his kids an unfair advantage over others by leaving them his money or his values or his love or his genetic material or his work ethic. Isn't that why kids were to be raised in communes, in treasonous liberal la la land?

The constitution's thinking is that people should be allowed to pursue happiness. It does not say philosophers contemplating their navels should determine other people's happiness nor their children's for that matter, is. It says the citizens have the right to pursue happiness. Wealth is the end product of a careful person's life of work, and saving back for a rainey day. They should be able to will that to their own children or even George of the Jungle if they should prefer, because it's their right.

Don't take the simple things the Constitution prescribes away from the American citizens. If you want a proctologist government, by all means, go live in Russia. That's their bag. Our government is set in place to augment business, help people do well and create jobs for others.

The government was also NOT created for lawmakers to expropriate other people's money so they, the elected turned thugmeisters, could pursue happiness and ensure that their nepotistic ends are met.

Stop drilling university students with the Marxist dogma of removing people's liberty and pursuit of happiness by expropriating their hard-earned money, their fortunes, and their children's futures by the pick-pocketing dogma of income redistribution suited to the oligarchs our Congress is quickly becoming. Make 'em do right or get rid of 'em.

 

[freedombecki]

The Bush Tax Cuts got us in this mess:

That was only the first of many, many "bad" Republican policies. Yet, they want to return to the good old days of "Bush".

Don't you ever read anything except DNC Talking points, Mr. Dean? You really need to get out more. /shaking head.

Also, What does 5 billion in new spending of Obama's have to do with Tax cuts? Couldn't he have just followed a budget?

Oh, wait. he didn't do any budget.

 

[GreatDay]

Illegal wars in the Mid East and Unbridled Spending got us into this mess.

1) wars were not illegal which is why you have no evidence
2) liberals are responsible for unbridled spending and so against Balanced Budget Amendment
3) money is fungible so who cares how banks paid back government

1. The wars were pre-emptive making them illegal.
2. Try again, there were times when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and did nothing. There were times when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and again did nothing. So your argument doesn't hold up.
3. When that money is diverted from other places that may have helped the economy.

BTW Fannie and Freddie should be eliminated. They are nothing but holes that money is thrown down and it is never seen again.

2. Try again, there were times when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and did nothing. There were times when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and again did nothing. So your argument doesn't hold up.

In 1993 the Democrats passed the omibus bill without a single Republican vote that led to the balanced budget and the only pay down on the debt till the GOP ramed their tax cut through in order to get us back on the debt track. You guys can't really be confused about how bad the Republican are, are you?

 

[expat_panama]

...In 1993 the Democrats passed the omibus bill without a single Republican vote that led to the balanced budget...

In a way that's true.

The deficit had been dropping before the fy94 tax hikes, and while the '94 hikes took in money they hurt the economy so by '95 the deficit shrank less than before. This led to Republicans taking over the House for passing spending and tax cuts--

Link: Federal Reserve Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed
Economic Research Division
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Federal Surplus or Deficit [-]
year $ Millions ___change
1992-09-30 -290321
1993-09-30 -255051 _35270
1994-09-30 -203186 _51865
1995-09-30 -163952 _39234
1996-09-30 -107431 _56521
1997-09-30 -21884 __85547
1998-09-30 69270 ___91154
1999-09-30 125610 __56340
2000-09-30 236241 _110631
​

--and in 1998 we finally got a balanced budget.