Faster horses
Well-known member
you know the one about, "are we better off than we were a year ago?"
I know I AM NOT...
I know I AM NOT...
Faster horses said:Ya but, my point is that NO ONE IS ASKING THE QUESTION...
remember how many times that question was asked publicly...now it
seems no one wants to ask it. Tsk, tsk, what a shame...
Faster horses said:I guess you are right, OT, since this problem started with your boy, CLINTON. He is the one who wanted everyone in a house whether they
could afford it or not. Maybe he realized the problems would surface under another president, not under his reign. Pretty sad.
Oldtimer said:Faster horses said:I guess you are right, OT, since this problem started with your boy, CLINTON. He is the one who wanted everyone in a house whether they
could afford it or not. Maybe he realized the problems would surface under another president, not under his reign. Pretty sad.
No doubt it started during the Clinton era- when the Republican controlled Congress threw out much of the banking regulation that was put in in the 1930's and Great Depression era just to keep this from happening again...That was followed by 8 more years of more deregulation/nonenforcement- and regulators taking an 8 year coffee break- with Congress doing no oversight- and the Boss sleeping at the wheel-- and we end up with the Bush Bust....
15 years of misdirection -- ain't going to get fixed overnight....
reader (the Second) said:Faster horses said:I guess you are right, OT, since this problem started with your boy, CLINTON. He is the one who wanted everyone in a house whether they
could afford it or not. Maybe he realized the problems would surface under another president, not under his reign. Pretty sad.
I do not know how you could justify this statement given the enormous amount of money that was spent on the war in Iraq. Anything Clinton spent pales compared to the deficit that Bush left us with.
Go get me figures from a reliable and objective source to show that it was Clinton who got us into this and not under-regulation and the trillions spent in Iraq.
reader (the Second) said:Yes but when you talk about the country being on bad economic times, how can you overlook the huge deficit that Bush left us with?
And the fact that the economic crisis came after 8 years of him being on the job.
reader (the Second) said:Faster horses said:I guess you are right, OT, since this problem started with your boy, CLINTON. He is the one who wanted everyone in a house whether they
could afford it or not. Maybe he realized the problems would surface under another president, not under his reign. Pretty sad.
I do not know how you could justify this statement given the enormous amount of money that was spent on the war in Iraq. Anything Clinton spent pales compared to the deficit that Bush left us with.
Go get me figures from a reliable and objective source to show that it was Clinton who got us into this and not under-regulation and the trillions spent in Iraq.
reader (the Second) said:U.S. Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion in 2008
This is chunk change I suppose?
Don't distract, answer the question Mike.
reader (the Second) said:Faster horses said:I guess you are right, OT, since this problem started with your boy, CLINTON. He is the one who wanted everyone in a house whether they
could afford it or not. Maybe he realized the problems would surface under another president, not under his reign. Pretty sad.
I do not know how you could justify this statement given the enormous amount of money that was spent on the war in Iraq. Anything Clinton spent pales compared to the deficit that Bush left us with.
Go get me figures from a reliable and objective source to show that it was Clinton who got us into this and not under-regulation and the trillions spent in Iraq.
reader (the Second) said:Yes but when you talk about the country being on bad economic times, how can you overlook the huge deficit that Bush left us with?
And the fact that the economic crisis came after 8 years of him being on the job.
Oldtimer said:reader (the Second) said:Yes but when you talk about the country being on bad economic times, how can you overlook the huge deficit that Bush left us with?
And the fact that the economic crisis came after 8 years of him being on the job.
Reader- they don't want to talk about that- or the 12 of the last 14 years Republicans controlled both houses of Congress or the 6 years Bush was in when they controlled all of D.C... Nope- all the problem either skips back to Clinton- or happened since 2006 and Dems took control of Congress... :roll: :wink: :lol:![]()
The cultist rose colored glasses and holes in the sand do not allow it.....
Tam said:Oldtimer said:reader (the Second) said:Yes but when you talk about the country being on bad economic times, how can you overlook the huge deficit that Bush left us with?
And the fact that the economic crisis came after 8 years of him being on the job.
Reader- they don't want to talk about that- or the 12 of the last 14 years Republicans controlled both houses of Congress or the 6 years Bush was in when they controlled all of D.C... Nope- all the problem either skips back to Clinton- or happened since 2006 and Dems took control of Congress... :roll: :wink: :lol:![]()
The cultist rose colored glasses and holes in the sand do not allow it.....
So you think the Republicans had control of both houses so lets see. PLEASE try Remember something Oldtimer, it takes 60 in the Senate to pass a bill.
Going into the 2000 elections,
House: 223 Republicans - 211 Democrats - 1 Independent
Senate: 55 Republicans - 45 Democrats (Nope they needed 60 so 5 Dems would have had to agree)
After 2000
House 221 Repub. - 212 Dems 1 Indep.
Senate 50 Repub 50 Dems (Split even so at least 10 Dems would have had to agree)
After 2002
House 229 Repub - 204 Dems 1 Indep.
Senate 51 Repub. - 48 Dems 1 Indep (still no 60 vote 9 Dems would have to agree)
After 2004
House 232 Repub. - 202 Dems 1 Indep
Senate 55 Repub. - 44 Dems 1 Indep (still on 60 vote 5 dems would have to have agreed)
After 2006
House 233 Dems 202 Repub.
Senate 49 Dems 49 Repub. 2 Indep. (Even split again with 11 dems having to have to walk across the floor)
After 2008
Dems control all three
House 257 Dems 178 Repub.
Senate 56 Dems 41 Repub. Indep. 2 (Well the Dems only need 4 to walk across the floor and they seem to know who they are. :wink![]()
Since the Republicans never had a 60 vote in the Senate they never had control of the Senate. Could this be the reason that the Senate is known as the place bills go to DIE. Hey Oldtimer I just heard Pelosi is threatening to toss the omnibus Bill out if it is not passed by tomorrow night. Why hasn't it passed if the Dems are now in control of both houses?
Oldtimer said:Faster horses said:Ya but, my point is that NO ONE IS ASKING THE QUESTION...
remember how many times that question was asked publicly...now it
seems no one wants to ask it. Tsk, tsk, what a shame...
Most realize we took a long time getting to this point- and its going to take a time to get out of it...Folks like you and me may never be around to see the full recovery from the Bush Bust- nor will many of our generation ever recover everything they lost...