As I have said before PMB show me and everyone else the legislation,laws,bills, acts and so on that W. SIGNED/ENACTED that caused the bank failures, housing debacle, market crash, in plain english the collapse of the economy. The fact is you cant because it was not any of Bushes legislation to blame. You sound like most of the politicians ignore the facts and try to divert the conversation.
Nobody on here thinks Bush or any president was or is perfect but the FACTS ARE THE FACTS and all of the liberal twisting will only divert the people for so long as the elections are already beginning to show. You fail to say when Bush took office the economy was in a down turn not to mention 911 nly nine months into his presidency, along with Katrina and 2 wars, the market crashing after 911 and somehow Bush bought the country back. The market reached the highest level in history, the economy revived until the liberals took over the house and senate in 11/06 and made Bush a lame duck.
Obama is an utter failure and it's getting worse everyday as I have said the FACTS ARE THE FACTS. 52 DAYS INTO THE WORST ENVIROMENTAL PROBLEM IN HISTORY WITH NO END IN SIGHT AND OBAMA HAS NOT MET FACE TO FACE OR EVEN TALKED ON THE PHONE WITH THE LEAD MAN AT BP, THATS THE POOREST EXAMPLE OF LEADERSHIP I HAVE EVER WITNESSED.
White House Faces Fresh Questions Over Back-Room Dealmaking
Moderators: Pike Ridge Beagles, Aaron Bartlett
-
Rabbithoundjb
- Posts: 4517
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:30 pm
- Location: Rocky Mount, NC
-
Collins Country
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: EUBANK,KY
- Contact:
Re: White House Faces Fresh Questions Over Back-Room Dealmaking
By PM aka Rufus=THIS POST IS THE VERY REASON I EVEN BOTHER WASTING MY TIME WITH YOU BRAIN DEAD HIPPOCRIT'S THIS IS THE REPUBLICAN -WAY DO ALL YOU CAN,TO DESTROY THE POOR AND WORKING CLASS ( THAT MEAN'S Y0U) SAY EVERY LIE YOU CAN, STEAL ALL YOU CAN .DESTROY AS MUCH OF AMERICA AS POSSABLE, THEN WHEN YOU FINALLY GET FOUND OUT LIE - AND WHEN SOME ONE ELSE FOLLOW'S YOU .BLAME IT ON THEM.--BUSH IS GOING DOWN IN HISTORY AS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER,YOU ALL KNOW THAT,AND IT WILL TAKE DECADES TO GET OVER HIS AND CHEENY'S TYRANT YEAR'S.WHAT I DON'T UNDER STAND IS HOW YOUO COULD EVEN CONSIDER VOTING REPUBLICAN-DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR FAMILY A VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN IS A VOTE AGAINST YOUR SELF AND YOUR FAMILY'S FUTURE,I DON'T THINK A REPUBLICAN HAS EVER DID ANYTHING FOR THE WORKING PEOPLE IN AMERICA ,IF SO IT WAS VERY LITTLE .
=
=OBAMA DOES NOT BLAME BUSH FOR HIS SHORT COMMING'S=AND HE HAS TAKEN RESPONSABILITY WHERE HE SHOULD YOU CANNOT SAY SAY THE SAME FOR =BUSH==I REMEMBER BUSH SAYING HE DID NOT MAKE A MISTAKE DURING HIS TYRANNY,, AND I KNOW MOST OF YOU BELIEVE THAT----=MR COLLIN'S YOU ARE WRONG- BUT- HECK YOU KNOW THAT YOU WOULD VOTE REPUBLICAN IF BIN LADEN WAS RUNNING ON THE G O P TICKET= BUT HE IS DOING MUCH MORE THAN BUSH AND CHEENY EVERY DID .I REMEMBER BUSH SAYING HE DID NOT MAKE A MISTAKE DURING HIS TYRANNY,, AND I KNOW MOST OF YOU BELIEVE THAT----HIPPOCRIT'S
-
-READ IF YOU DARE , end quote.
Rufus, you name one time this sorry sack of stuff has took responsibility for his failure as president! In stead all you hear is about the "previous administration", or "the one before me". I personally am getting sick of people, especially like you, defending him. He is a devider of the country and that is what he wants. I hope you can speak spanish, that will be the next majority language when he gets all them illegals legal and signed up with the demarat party!
=
=OBAMA DOES NOT BLAME BUSH FOR HIS SHORT COMMING'S=AND HE HAS TAKEN RESPONSABILITY WHERE HE SHOULD YOU CANNOT SAY SAY THE SAME FOR =BUSH==I REMEMBER BUSH SAYING HE DID NOT MAKE A MISTAKE DURING HIS TYRANNY,, AND I KNOW MOST OF YOU BELIEVE THAT----=MR COLLIN'S YOU ARE WRONG- BUT- HECK YOU KNOW THAT YOU WOULD VOTE REPUBLICAN IF BIN LADEN WAS RUNNING ON THE G O P TICKET= BUT HE IS DOING MUCH MORE THAN BUSH AND CHEENY EVERY DID .I REMEMBER BUSH SAYING HE DID NOT MAKE A MISTAKE DURING HIS TYRANNY,, AND I KNOW MOST OF YOU BELIEVE THAT----HIPPOCRIT'S
-
-READ IF YOU DARE , end quote.
Rufus, you name one time this sorry sack of stuff has took responsibility for his failure as president! In stead all you hear is about the "previous administration", or "the one before me". I personally am getting sick of people, especially like you, defending him. He is a devider of the country and that is what he wants. I hope you can speak spanish, that will be the next majority language when he gets all them illegals legal and signed up with the demarat party!
-
Pine Mt Beagles
- Posts: 7803
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: Pineville Ky
Re: White House Faces Fresh Questions Over Back-Room Dealmaking
Rufus, you name one time this sorry sack of stuff has took responsibility for his failure as president! In stead all you hear is about the "previous administration", or "the one before me". I personally am getting sick of people, especially like you, defending him. He is a devider of the country and that is what he wants. I hope you can speak spanish, that will be the next majority language when he gets all them illegals legal and signed up with the demarat party!
-
-WELL ==MR COLLIN'S ===I CAN'T BECAUSE HE IS OT A FAILURE AT LEAST NOT YET==AND I DO SPEAK SOME SPANISH==THANK;S FOR YOUR CONCERN===BUT WHAT I THINK IS UTTERLY DISGRACEFUL IS YOU SAYING THIS PRESIDENT IS A DIVIDER ==WHEN THE LAST PIECE OF GARBAGE IN THIS OFFICE WILL BE KNOWN THROUGH OUT HISTORY AS A DIVISIONARY ==AND THIS PRESIDENT HAS TRIED ON EVERY FRONT TO UNITE THE COUNTRY BUT THE REPUBLICAN'S ARE ON STRIKE==
-
-WELL ==MR COLLIN'S ===I CAN'T BECAUSE HE IS OT A FAILURE AT LEAST NOT YET==AND I DO SPEAK SOME SPANISH==THANK;S FOR YOUR CONCERN===BUT WHAT I THINK IS UTTERLY DISGRACEFUL IS YOU SAYING THIS PRESIDENT IS A DIVIDER ==WHEN THE LAST PIECE OF GARBAGE IN THIS OFFICE WILL BE KNOWN THROUGH OUT HISTORY AS A DIVISIONARY ==AND THIS PRESIDENT HAS TRIED ON EVERY FRONT TO UNITE THE COUNTRY BUT THE REPUBLICAN'S ARE ON STRIKE==
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered
-
Pine Mt Beagles
- Posts: 7803
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: Pineville Ky
Re: White House Faces Fresh Questions Over Back-Room Dealmaking
FOR YOU ==RABBIT HOUND====OF COURSE YOU WANT READ IT AND WILL JUST SAY IT IS SOME LEFT HAND B.S.
Bush tanked the U.S. economy
Recession, like menopause, is a retrospective diagnosis. You don't know you're in one until you've been in it for at least two quarters (referring to a recession) or a year (for menopause). The question for me is not: Are we hitting a recession in 2008? It is: What has made the economy so buoyant that we didn't submerge into a recession several years ago?
Wall Street giant and billion-dollar bank Merrill Lynch announced last week that the United States had entered a recession for the first time in 16 years.said economist, David Rosenberg --
The largest factor driving this country's economy into recession has been the Bush administration's profligate spending. Please read the following quote from the conservative/libertarian think tank Cato Institute's Web site:
"George Bush is mired in a fiscal policy crisis worse than anyone could have envisioned when he entered the Oval Office ... This crisis is the resurgence of record federal deficits ... The deterioration of America's fiscal health cannot be blamed on ... pro-spending coalitions in the Democrat-controlled Congress -- although certainly some of the blame lies there. It is almost exclusively the creation of the Bush administration itself."
Forget about the $127 billion surplus that President Clinton left the nation after he moved out of the White House or the fact that Clinton paid down hundreds of billions of dollars in federal debt. President George W. Bush has produced nothing but deficits since he's been in office. Last year's, at $163 billion, was the lowest in five years. But it probably would not have been if his trillion-dollar war in Iraq hadn't been paid for "off budget." That little budgetary trick by the administration means that cost isn't tallied in the deficit and debt figures.
Then, of course, there's Bush's multitrillion-dollar tax cut.
Here's a lesson Bush never learned and one that probably could have kept this country out of recession: You can't fight an expensive war AND cut taxes simultaneously without sending the U.S. economy into the tank.
That is just what Bush has done.
There are other contributing factors, of course. The housing bust has hurt this consumer-driven economy mightily. Americans felt richer and borrowed heavily against home equity at the height of the boom. These factors kept corporate profits and the economy growing.
But the bust that has now followed was highly predictable. Real estate always runs in cycles. The last real-estate boom lasted an incredibly long five years. The president should not have been piling up irresponsible debt, knowing the crash would come at some point.
Then there is oil. Prices have been high since Hurricane Katrina, more than two years ago. When you consider that early in Bush's first term oil was selling for about $25 per barrel, and we're now paying about four times that much, it's incredible that fact alone didn't drive us into recession territory much sooner.
What has kept our economy growing these past few years? My theory is: immigration. When millions of people flood into this country with few possessions, buy homes and fill them with consumer goods, of course our consumer economy is pumped. But that artificial pump-up won't last forever. Unfortunately, the overdevelopment they prompt and the environmental degradation they create will.
-
-THIS WAS NEVER ADDED TO THE BUDGET-- his trillion-dollar war in Iraq hadn't been paid for " it was off budget.NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE BUDGET
-
Bush tanked the U.S. economy
Recession, like menopause, is a retrospective diagnosis. You don't know you're in one until you've been in it for at least two quarters (referring to a recession) or a year (for menopause). The question for me is not: Are we hitting a recession in 2008? It is: What has made the economy so buoyant that we didn't submerge into a recession several years ago?
Wall Street giant and billion-dollar bank Merrill Lynch announced last week that the United States had entered a recession for the first time in 16 years.said economist, David Rosenberg --
The largest factor driving this country's economy into recession has been the Bush administration's profligate spending. Please read the following quote from the conservative/libertarian think tank Cato Institute's Web site:
"George Bush is mired in a fiscal policy crisis worse than anyone could have envisioned when he entered the Oval Office ... This crisis is the resurgence of record federal deficits ... The deterioration of America's fiscal health cannot be blamed on ... pro-spending coalitions in the Democrat-controlled Congress -- although certainly some of the blame lies there. It is almost exclusively the creation of the Bush administration itself."
Forget about the $127 billion surplus that President Clinton left the nation after he moved out of the White House or the fact that Clinton paid down hundreds of billions of dollars in federal debt. President George W. Bush has produced nothing but deficits since he's been in office. Last year's, at $163 billion, was the lowest in five years. But it probably would not have been if his trillion-dollar war in Iraq hadn't been paid for "off budget." That little budgetary trick by the administration means that cost isn't tallied in the deficit and debt figures.
Then, of course, there's Bush's multitrillion-dollar tax cut.
Here's a lesson Bush never learned and one that probably could have kept this country out of recession: You can't fight an expensive war AND cut taxes simultaneously without sending the U.S. economy into the tank.
That is just what Bush has done.
There are other contributing factors, of course. The housing bust has hurt this consumer-driven economy mightily. Americans felt richer and borrowed heavily against home equity at the height of the boom. These factors kept corporate profits and the economy growing.
But the bust that has now followed was highly predictable. Real estate always runs in cycles. The last real-estate boom lasted an incredibly long five years. The president should not have been piling up irresponsible debt, knowing the crash would come at some point.
Then there is oil. Prices have been high since Hurricane Katrina, more than two years ago. When you consider that early in Bush's first term oil was selling for about $25 per barrel, and we're now paying about four times that much, it's incredible that fact alone didn't drive us into recession territory much sooner.
What has kept our economy growing these past few years? My theory is: immigration. When millions of people flood into this country with few possessions, buy homes and fill them with consumer goods, of course our consumer economy is pumped. But that artificial pump-up won't last forever. Unfortunately, the overdevelopment they prompt and the environmental degradation they create will.
-
-THIS WAS NEVER ADDED TO THE BUDGET-- his trillion-dollar war in Iraq hadn't been paid for " it was off budget.NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE BUDGET
-
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered
-
Pine Mt Beagles
- Posts: 7803
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: Pineville Ky
Re: White House Faces Fresh Questions Over Back-Room Dealmaking
.
Putting Tax Money into Bush's Pocket
The hypocritical part is, the private owners of this very valuable land didn't want to sell. Bush and his partners gave them only a lowball offer, and when it was rejected they arranged for a new government agency (the Arlington Sports Facility Development Authority, or ASFDA) to condemn it for them.
The agency foreclosed the land and paid the owners a very low price, later judged by a jury to be only 1/6th of its actual value. The agency also floated bonds, guaranteed and repaid by taxpayers, to finance the purchase. This amounted to a $135 million subsidy for Bush and partners, compared with the $80 million they paid for the franchise. Since they sold the entire franchise for $250 million, it's easy to see whose money Bush and friends pocketed.
The next time Junior talks about tax cuts, remember this: Arlinton had to impose a new 1/2 cent sales tax just to pay for the subsidy Bush and his partners received.
To add insult to injury, Bush and his partners continue to stiff the taxpayers for $7.5 million they owe under the terms of the agreement. It held that the team would pay all expenses over $135 million. The original owners of just 13 of the acres sued the City of Arlington, saying that the ASFDA had not paid a fair price for the land. The jury awarded them $7.5 million, but even though the project exceeded the $135 million limit, the partners have refused to pay. Given their huge taxpayer subsidy and $170 million profits, it seems absurdly selfish.
George Bush, Jr. has said in campaign speeches "I will do everything I can to defend the power of private property and private property rights when I am the governor of this state." Apparently this deal was not covered by that statement, since he wasn't governor yet.
He claims that he "wasn't aware of the details" of the land condemnations, even though he was the team's managing general partner and has bragged about personally getting the stadium built. But he told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in October 1990 that "The idea of making a land play, absolutely, to plunk the field down in the middle of a big piece of land, that's kind of always been the strategy."
And the key to their land play was always the strong arm of government. A memo from Arlington real estate broker Mike Reilly to Rangers President Tom Schieffer dated October 26, 1990 - the day before Bush's comment about the land play - said "In this particular situation our first offer should be our final offer ... If this fails, we will probably have to initiate condemnation proceedings after the bond election passes."
On the first day of the 1993 campaign, Bush said "The best way to allocate resources in our society is through the marketplace. Not through a governing elite." Not through a private sports team buying in the President's son cheap, and then getting the government to hand them extremely valuable land.
-
-THIS IS OLD BUT SINCE YOU GUY'S GO BACK TO WHEN= PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN =THEN IT IS NOT, THAT OLD =IT JUST PROVES= THIS GUY THAT YOU WORHSHIP =WAS A TYRANT= EVEN BEFORE HE WAS PRESIDENT.==JUST ONE OF MANY==OF THE DISGUSTING THING'S HE HAS DONE.===NO HE IS NOT PRESIDENT- NOW -BUT THIS JUST SHOW'S WHAT YOU VOTED FOR.
Putting Tax Money into Bush's Pocket
The hypocritical part is, the private owners of this very valuable land didn't want to sell. Bush and his partners gave them only a lowball offer, and when it was rejected they arranged for a new government agency (the Arlington Sports Facility Development Authority, or ASFDA) to condemn it for them.
The agency foreclosed the land and paid the owners a very low price, later judged by a jury to be only 1/6th of its actual value. The agency also floated bonds, guaranteed and repaid by taxpayers, to finance the purchase. This amounted to a $135 million subsidy for Bush and partners, compared with the $80 million they paid for the franchise. Since they sold the entire franchise for $250 million, it's easy to see whose money Bush and friends pocketed.
The next time Junior talks about tax cuts, remember this: Arlinton had to impose a new 1/2 cent sales tax just to pay for the subsidy Bush and his partners received.
To add insult to injury, Bush and his partners continue to stiff the taxpayers for $7.5 million they owe under the terms of the agreement. It held that the team would pay all expenses over $135 million. The original owners of just 13 of the acres sued the City of Arlington, saying that the ASFDA had not paid a fair price for the land. The jury awarded them $7.5 million, but even though the project exceeded the $135 million limit, the partners have refused to pay. Given their huge taxpayer subsidy and $170 million profits, it seems absurdly selfish.
George Bush, Jr. has said in campaign speeches "I will do everything I can to defend the power of private property and private property rights when I am the governor of this state." Apparently this deal was not covered by that statement, since he wasn't governor yet.
He claims that he "wasn't aware of the details" of the land condemnations, even though he was the team's managing general partner and has bragged about personally getting the stadium built. But he told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in October 1990 that "The idea of making a land play, absolutely, to plunk the field down in the middle of a big piece of land, that's kind of always been the strategy."
And the key to their land play was always the strong arm of government. A memo from Arlington real estate broker Mike Reilly to Rangers President Tom Schieffer dated October 26, 1990 - the day before Bush's comment about the land play - said "In this particular situation our first offer should be our final offer ... If this fails, we will probably have to initiate condemnation proceedings after the bond election passes."
On the first day of the 1993 campaign, Bush said "The best way to allocate resources in our society is through the marketplace. Not through a governing elite." Not through a private sports team buying in the President's son cheap, and then getting the government to hand them extremely valuable land.
-
-THIS IS OLD BUT SINCE YOU GUY'S GO BACK TO WHEN= PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN =THEN IT IS NOT, THAT OLD =IT JUST PROVES= THIS GUY THAT YOU WORHSHIP =WAS A TYRANT= EVEN BEFORE HE WAS PRESIDENT.==JUST ONE OF MANY==OF THE DISGUSTING THING'S HE HAS DONE.===NO HE IS NOT PRESIDENT- NOW -BUT THIS JUST SHOW'S WHAT YOU VOTED FOR.
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered
-
Rabbithoundjb
- Posts: 4517
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:30 pm
- Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Re: White House Faces Fresh Questions Over Back-Room Dealmaking
I have never defended W.'s spending so that is old news and if you are saying that the Bush spending is what drove the economic crash then explain how you can defend Obamas spending which is much worse on the economy you claim Bush's spending crashed. STILL (NO) LEGISLATION TO TIE BUSH TO ANYTHING YOU ACCUSE HIM OF!!!!!!!!!!!!
The same bull$hit you post redundently that you can't tie to Bush, just something some other Bush hater wrote.
As far as W's deficit goes his spending shows either on the federal budget or the national debt and I know you are not going to toast Bush for spending money he didn't have and then turn around and defend Obama for doing the VERY SAME THING. THATS WHAT A HIPPOCRIT DOES SO GO AHEAD.
The same bull$hit you post redundently that you can't tie to Bush, just something some other Bush hater wrote.
As far as W's deficit goes his spending shows either on the federal budget or the national debt and I know you are not going to toast Bush for spending money he didn't have and then turn around and defend Obama for doing the VERY SAME THING. THATS WHAT A HIPPOCRIT DOES SO GO AHEAD.
-
Pine Mt Beagles
- Posts: 7803
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: Pineville Ky
Re: White House Faces Fresh Questions Over Back-Room Dealmaking
by Rabbithoundjb on Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:45 pm
I have never defended W.'s spending so that is old news and if you are saying that the Bush spending is what drove the economic crash then explain how you can defend Obamas spending which is much worse on the economy you claim Bush's spending crashed. STILL (NO) LEGISLATION TO TIE BUSH TO ANYTHING YOU ACCUSE HIM OF!!!!!!!!!!!!
The same bull$hit you post redundently that you can't tie to Bush, just something some other Bush hater wrote.
As far as W's deficit goes his spending shows either on the federal budget or the national debt and I know you are not going to toast Bush for spending money he didn't have and then turn around and defend Obama for doing the VERY SAME THING. THATS WHAT A HIPPOCRIT DOES SO GO AHEAD.
-
-
YOU ARE AS FUNNY AS -BLUE- IS BUSH- TANKED THE ECONOMY ,THROUGH THE TAX BREAK'S HE PASSED FOR THE TOP 1 %-AND THE WAR'S HE DECIDED TO FIGHT BECAUSE GOD TOLD HIM TO,HE SPENT MILLION'S ON GITMO.IT WOULD TAKE MONTH'S TO LIST ALL THE THEFT AND CORRUPTION HE SHOUVED DOWN THE TAX PAYER'S THROAT.. THE SIMPLE FACT IS HE HAD (6) YEARS OF A BLANK CHECK FROM THE REPUBLICAN'S,AND HE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT ONLY A BRAIN DEAD MORON WOULD EVEN ATTEMPT THE B.S. YOU ARE TRYING,==AND YES I DO DEFEND SOME OF THIS PRESIDENT'S SPENDING ,,NOT ALL,, BUT THERE WAS NO WAY THE COUNTRY COULD HAVE SURVIVED WITH OUT IT .BUT YOU KNOW THAT ALREADY YOU JUST WANT EXCEPT ANYTHING NOT REPUBLICAN..PROGRAMMED.
I have never defended W.'s spending so that is old news and if you are saying that the Bush spending is what drove the economic crash then explain how you can defend Obamas spending which is much worse on the economy you claim Bush's spending crashed. STILL (NO) LEGISLATION TO TIE BUSH TO ANYTHING YOU ACCUSE HIM OF!!!!!!!!!!!!
The same bull$hit you post redundently that you can't tie to Bush, just something some other Bush hater wrote.
As far as W's deficit goes his spending shows either on the federal budget or the national debt and I know you are not going to toast Bush for spending money he didn't have and then turn around and defend Obama for doing the VERY SAME THING. THATS WHAT A HIPPOCRIT DOES SO GO AHEAD.
-
-
YOU ARE AS FUNNY AS -BLUE- IS BUSH- TANKED THE ECONOMY ,THROUGH THE TAX BREAK'S HE PASSED FOR THE TOP 1 %-AND THE WAR'S HE DECIDED TO FIGHT BECAUSE GOD TOLD HIM TO,HE SPENT MILLION'S ON GITMO.IT WOULD TAKE MONTH'S TO LIST ALL THE THEFT AND CORRUPTION HE SHOUVED DOWN THE TAX PAYER'S THROAT.. THE SIMPLE FACT IS HE HAD (6) YEARS OF A BLANK CHECK FROM THE REPUBLICAN'S,AND HE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT ONLY A BRAIN DEAD MORON WOULD EVEN ATTEMPT THE B.S. YOU ARE TRYING,==AND YES I DO DEFEND SOME OF THIS PRESIDENT'S SPENDING ,,NOT ALL,, BUT THERE WAS NO WAY THE COUNTRY COULD HAVE SURVIVED WITH OUT IT .BUT YOU KNOW THAT ALREADY YOU JUST WANT EXCEPT ANYTHING NOT REPUBLICAN..PROGRAMMED.If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered
-
Rabbithoundjb
- Posts: 4517
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:30 pm
- Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Re: White House Faces Fresh Questions Over Back-Room Dealmaking
THE SAME LIES AND UNINFORMED POST, THE TOP 10% OF TAX PAYERS PAID 81% OF THE TAXES UNDER BUSH WHILE THE TOP 10% PAID 77% UNDER CLINTON AND YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT.
BUSH'S TAX CUTS ELIMINATED THE TAX BURDEN ON THE 3 MILLION LOWEST EARNERS AND CUT THE NEXT 20% BY 40%, GO DO SOME READING AND EDUCATE YOURSELF.
YOU CAN FIND THIS INFO AT U.S. TAX FOUNDATION IF YOU SEARCH HARD ENOUGH.
WHAT CORRUPTION, YOU KEEP TALKING BUT SAYING NOTHING.
BUSH'S TAX CUTS ELIMINATED THE TAX BURDEN ON THE 3 MILLION LOWEST EARNERS AND CUT THE NEXT 20% BY 40%, GO DO SOME READING AND EDUCATE YOURSELF.
YOU CAN FIND THIS INFO AT U.S. TAX FOUNDATION IF YOU SEARCH HARD ENOUGH.
WHAT CORRUPTION, YOU KEEP TALKING BUT SAYING NOTHING.
Re: White House Faces Fresh Questions Over Back-Room Dealmaking
I think Dufus needs to go on Dr. Phil, He needs some serious help and dirrection. 
