AP cited only single anonymous Republican official in support of stimulus falsehood
SUMMARY: A revised version of an AP article made clear that the claim of a "top Republican congressional official" reported in the original version of the article -- that the economic stimulus package being considered in Congress "could steer government checks to illegal immigrants" -- is false. But at no point in the original article did the AP indicate that it had contacted or attempted to contact any Democratic officials -- or anyone else besides the single anonymous Republican official -- to confirm whether the legislation would permit undocumented immigrants to receive tax credits.
As Media Matters for America documented, a January 29 Associated Press article headlined, "Hill Republican: Stimulus aids illegal immigrants," reported: "The $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday." Staff writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis went on to falsely claim that the legislation "would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks." A revised version of the AP article made clear that the claim made by the "top Republican congressional official" -- and repeated by the AP -- is, in fact, false. But at no point in her original article did Davis indicate that she had contacted or attempted to contact any Democratic officials -- or anyone else besides the single anonymous "top Republican congressional official" -- to confirm whether the legislation would permit undocumented immigrants to receive tax credits.
The revised AP article reported: "Two senior GOP congressional officials expressed concern Thursday that the bill could steer government checks to undocumented workers, but in fact the measure indicates that Social Security numbers are needed to claim tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple. It also expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens."
A January 29 headline on the Drudge Report stated, "Hill Republican: Stimulus Gives Cash To Illegals," and linked to the initial AP article. The Drudge Report did not remove the headline or the link to the original version of the AP article until roughly four hours after the new version was available, as Media Matters noted.
From the initial version of the AP article, headlined, "Hill Republican: Stimulus aids illegal immigrants":
The $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday.
The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.
Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits.
From the revised version of the AP article, headlined, "Stimulus seeks to bar illegals from tax credit":
Illegal immigrants who lack Social Security numbers could not get tax credits under the $800 billion-plus economic stimulus package making its way through Congress.
Two senior GOP congressional officials expressed concern Thursday that the bill could steer government checks to undocumented workers, but in fact the measure indicates that Social Security numbers are needed to claim tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple. It also expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens.
The Republicans spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. But Democrats were quick to reject the notion.
"This legislation is directed toward people who are legal in our country. It is about time the Republicans got a different piece of reading material and get off this illegal immigrant stuff," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "This bill has nothing to do with anything illegal as far as immigration. It creates jobs for people who are lawfully in this country."
A revolt among GOP conservatives to provisions of last year's economic stimulus bill, which sent rebate checks to most wage earners, forced Democratic congressional leaders to add stricter eligibility requirements. That legislation, enacted in February 2008, required that people have valid Social Security numbers in order to get checks.
The current plan doesn't contain that requirement, but it imposes the same qualifications for the tax credit as are in place for the earned income tax credit, a program for low-income workers that is limited to people with Social Security numbers.
Why didn't the Republican official allow the use of his name? Why the need for an anonymous source in a piece like this? There is no reason other than the Republican official wanted to spread a lie without having his name attached to it...and the reporter complied. I wonder how many real journalists there still are out there...probably not many. <sigh>
Oh come on Irony......
You can do better than that!
Don't hold back.... say something like...
"Why didn't this punk of a Republican official allow the use of his name? "anonymous source"? IN A PIECE LIKE THIS? There is no reason other than the patheticlly inept Republican official wanted to spread a lie for the FoxNoise/Rush Limbaugh caveat will have something to flap their gums about without having his name attached to it... and shocking... the reporter complied! Raise you hand if you did not see that coming?
I wonder how many ---> real <--- journalists there still are out there that are part of the corporate veil of uselessness?" <sigh>
Other than that Irony.... your post was spot on! :)
Cap, please understand I have turned over a new leaf and embarked on a philosophy of moderation of expression. ;>)
We can always trust anonymous sources...
You know, in 99% of those instances I think its the reporter/journalist/commentator themselves
You know, in 99% of those instances I think its the reporter/journalist/commentator themselves
I have to agree with you completely.
I'm always amused when I hear limbaugh say "what this /they REALLY mean(s) is". My first thought used to be "I understand English, rush. I heard what was said". But I guess dittoheads have such a limited grasp of the language they use everyday, they need help. I just can't believe that after the last election anyone would take him seriously. Its sad really.
Opps... wrong page. Sorry.
No worries, that is one of those statements that fits on any page discussing the terms republicans, press, lies...
Let's take a look see at how fast the money from this 'stimulus' bill actually makes an impact.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf
Specifically, with the first table on page 4, how fast this 'descretionary' spending, ie pork, gets into the economy. And remember, even the CBO said that historically this goes slower than predicted.
Read and see.
PS Here in America we still call them 'illegal' immigrants.
Hey proud con,
What's your point? You don't want to do anything and we should let the economy collapse?
Also, the table is on page 3. and your use of stupid language likje "pork" adds nothing to the discussion and finally where does the CBO say that "historically this goes slower than predicted."?
The economy wouldn't collapse, that is media BS and is a complete fabrication of the truth.
Businesses fail everyday, every year, these are no different. The auto industry started making cars that nobody wanted to buy, so what happened? Duh the industry is failing.
The banks were being forced to give loans to people that wouldn't be able to pay them back. Obviously then the bad loans started to come in and amazingly the banks are failing.
Whats odd about this is the auto industry was being forced to make "green" cars courtesy of the cafe standards of environmentalist nuts.
The Republicans saw the banking/housing industry beginning to collapse 3 years ago, yet Democrats like Chris Dodd vehemently denied that there was anything wrong.
The banks were being forced to give loans to people that wouldn't be able to pay them back. B2B
That is an outright LIE. I won't bother with the rest of your nonsense.
The banks are failing because they repackaged and resold the loans as credit default swaps. They led investors to believe ther investments were secured and insured, when in fact, the loans were turned over and over again, each time making a profit for the financial institution.
It was a scam and it had very little to do with poor people getting loans they couldn't afford.
You also may have noticed that the foreign car makers are hurting too. Sony Electronics is losing money. It's not just the US and it's not the evil union workers and low income people who got us into mess, but the bankers and financial experts with their Ponzi Schemes.
Conservatives for some reason have it in their head that people failing to pay their mortgage is what caused this crisis and that's really simplistic thinking. Banks are so large nowadays that they can overcome a problem like that. What they couldn't overcome is investors gambling on these risky mortgages.
Because they'd rather blame this mess on poor people than on the overpaid leeches running the banks.
I heard a banker interviewed on NPR a month or so ago. He said that a foreclosed mortgage was easy to deal with, but the way these have been sliced up and repackaged has turned the whole thing into a hopelessly complicated mess. The real problem was created on Wall Street... the Republicans just can't admit it.
B2B,
Many falsehoods in your short post. The banks were not "forced" to give loans to people who wouldn't be able to pay them back. There is no evidence for your assertion. If there is, post one banker testifying to this under oath. Just one.
Also, the auto industry was "forced" to make greener cars? I may be misunderstanding you, but when?
The Republicans saw this collapse happening three years ago? Really? In January 2006, Republicans held majorities in both houses and had the Presidency. Please point me to one bill that they wanted to pass, but was filibustered by the Dems. Wasn't Bush the one pushing an "ownership society?"
boileddogkid1492,
Here is testimony from Raines, who headed Fannie Mae, a democrat icon and soon to be fired for cooking the books and taking huge bonuses accordingly, about $50 mil or so I believe. In his testimony before congress in 2004, he pleads with them to resist making new regulations that would limit their ability to give loans to people with poor credit and to not have government regulation:
Under the current program approval standard, we can act in a timely manner to respond to the needs and ideas presented by our partners, such as low down payment loans through Flexible 97 and 100; MyCommunityMortgage products to meet Community Reinvestment Act needs; and Expanded Approval to reach out to underserved borrowers with blemished credit. These mortgage features have been crucial tools in reaching into communities that were previously underserved. The mortgage market today has a wider variety of products available than ever before, and therefore is better poised to meet the individual financing needs of a broader range of home buyers. This has been possible because the program approval requirements in the 1992 law respect the need for innovation and strike an appropriate balance between charter enforcement and management discretion.
These innovations are critical to our ability to continue to serve our mission. And they could come to a halt under a "new activity" or "new product" standard.
The current standard has allowed us the flexibility to work with lenders to meet the needs of the marketplace, while ensuring proper oversight of our mission. Just last year, we sought program approval for a new initiative to provide Acquisition, Development, and Construction lending to help our lender partners finance the development of affordable housing.
We urge that any legislation reiterate the congressional view that Fannie Mae should support innovation in the market as it carries out its mission. Congress needs to make clear again that the companies are encouraged to innovate and be responsive to market needs. In addition, we believe that any change in this area must take into account the very strong concerns that have been raised from many within the housing industry, to ensure that innovation can remain strong.
Some have proposed an intrusive process that would require us to seek approval from HUD or from our new regulator every time we undertake a new "activity" or create a new "product." Such micromanagement would put a halt to the innovation that has made the mortgage industry efficient enough to handle the volumes of mortgage originations last year and creative enough to bring homeownership opportunities to underserved communities around the nation.
Such micromanagement would also be far more constraining than anything imposed by bank regulators. Under the OCC and OTS regimes, banks are not required to seek pre-approval of new activities. Gramm-Leach-Bliley allows banks to go into broad new lines of business, like securities or insurance, without any pre-approval. They can engage in activities listed in their charters and incident thereto; they seek regulatory "cold-comfort" when they are pushing the envelope with respect to legal authority or suspect the regulator might have concerns. Regulators and courts have interpreted banks' freedom very broadly.
Today, when a lender identifies a new mortgage product designed to meet the needs of a particular underserved community, we can examine the product and its risk profile and give the lender a timely response as to whether or not we will buy the loan. When we can respond quickly, lenders can bring the new mortgage product to market in a timely fashion. Under a "new product" standard, every time a lender approached us about a new mortgage feature, we would have to go to our regulator to get permission to purchase these loans. Small lenders could not put these targeted products into the market without knowing that we will buy them once originated. Innovation to meet the needs of underserved communities could come to a halt.
Here's a link to all of his testimony:
http://www.fanniemae.com/media/speeches/printthispage.jhtml;jsessionid=IUY3UT4X5DWEXJ2FQSHSFGQ?repID=/media/speeches/2004/speech_236.xml
What problems do you have with his testimony?
PC,
I really, really don't enjoy you butchering my family name. But that's beside the point. Your quoted testimony shows nothing refuting my point. Is there something in his testimony that shows that banks were forced to make loans they know they would never get back?
looneytunz and somewhoisupsetaboutmeteasingabouthisnamebutbutchersithimselfbyaddingboy&1422toit(unlessthatispartofthenametoo),
Yes, it's Wikpedia but it gives a good synopis of what Raines was trying to cover up. Look closely at the legislative changes in the CRA from 1989-1995 and how banks had to respond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
Some highligts:
"According to Ben Bernanke, this law greatly increased the ability of advocacy groups, researchers, and other analysts to "perform more-sophisticated, quantitative analyses of banks' records," thereby influencing the lending policies of banks. Over time, community groups and nonprofit organizations established "more-formalized and more-productive partnerships with banks." (ACORN anyone?)
and,
"According to Bernanke, a surge in bank merger and acquisition activities followed the passing of the act, and advocacy groups increasingly used the public comment process to protest bank applications on CRA grounds. When applications were highly contested, federal agencies held public hearings to allow public comment on the bank's lending record."
and more,
"In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act," which repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. The bill was killed in 1998 because Senator Phil Gramm wanted the bill to expand the number of banks which no longer would be covered by the CRA. He also demanded full disclosure of any financial deals which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion." In 1999 Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer broke another deadlock by forcing a compromise between Gramm and the Clinton administration which wanted to prevent banks from expanding into insurance or securities unless they were compliant with the CRA."(meaning...you better be taking this risky loans on or else!)
Look at how Dodd and Schumer protected themselves and groups like ACORN when the Republicans wanted to keep banks from having to do the risky loans if they wanted to expand services. And didn't Dodd get a sweetheart deal from Countrywide, one of the companies fannie mae brokered for?
Now, stay with me. Raines didn't want the banks to have to be scrutinized about their lending practices: "Under the current program approval standard, we can act in a timely manner to respond to the needs and ideas presented by our partners, such as low down payment loans through Flexible 97 and 100; MyCommunityMortgage products to meet Community Reinvestment Act needs; and Expanded Approval to reach out to underserved borrowers with blemished credit. These mortgage features have been crucial tools in reaching into communities that were previously underserved.
He knew that banks were in trouble with the 'special programs' they had be forced to take on because of the threat for banks during the Clinton adminstration via Cesneros , Cumo and Reno. All that bad debt was because of loans to 'underserved bowwers with blemished credit'. What were the products? Sub-prime loans, ones that had variable interest rates, no money down loans, etc. See what he was protecting in his words below:
The mortgage market today has a wider variety of products available than ever before, and therefore is better poised to meet the individual financing needs of a broader range of home buyers. This has been possible because the program approval requirements in the 1992 law respect the need for innovation and strike an appropriate balance between charter enforcement and management discretion.
He was saying in essence, Leave us alone, republicans! No need for more regulation here!
Here's a video review going back to the Clinton administration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314
And just for further consideration:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/081128/issues.html?.v=1
The CRA was passed in order to stop the discriminatory practice of redlining. It forced no bank to make loans to people who could not repay them.
And you’re still under the wrong impression that people defaulting on their homes is what caused of this crisis.
Oh contrare, my looney friend,
from this report http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/081128/issues.html?.v=1
"The CRA coerces banks into making loans based on political correctness, and little else, to people who can't afford them. Enforced like never before by the Clinton administration, the regulation destroyed credit standards across the mortgage industry, created the subprime market, and caused the housing bubble that has now burst and left us with the worst housing and banking crises since the Great Depression."
and did you view the video and hear the word describing 'afirmative action' loan brokering? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314
This is not about a few homeowners defaulting this is about a system set up to create this chaos. Exhibit 3 from the Harold Raines testimony and shows how fannie was neck deep in making sure they covered these forced loans by the banks.
http://www.fanniemae.com/media/speeches/printthispage.jhtml;jsessionid=IUY3UT4X5DWEXJ2FQSHSFGQ?repID=/media/speeches/2004/speech_236.xml
The first article is someone's biased opinion. They're entitled to it.
In the YouTube video, Obama actually identified the problem that caused the crisis: Credit Default Swaps.
Franklin's testimony doesn't indicate "a system set up to crate chaos". He said in his opening statement that Fannie Mae had to have enough capital to withstand a ten year period of economic downturn. I don't think anyone anticipated the damage that would be caused by Credits Default Swaps.
proudextremistcrybaby,
Your transparently self-serving attempts to blame your woes on class and race are perfect examples of conservative denial. This crisis is about the Republican fiscal insanity that says laissez-faire capitalism is God, and it's about bankers run amok. Period.
Keep spreading your nefarious lies, it's what you do. It's who you are, you are the perfect conservative. But here's the truth. The CRA is about basic equality, it's about giving people in poorer neighborhoods, on their own merits, the same opportunity as everyone else in town to get a mortgage.
There are high standards of safe and sound banking practices involved for banks that conduct CRA practices. The CRA only applies to FDIC member banks. The CRA requires banks to lend to working class families and minorities, but only when those people have been deemed as creditworthy as anyone else.
Now, in the eighties, we saw lending businesses flourish. They did not take deposits so they did not have comply with CRA standards and were able to establish much riskier lending practices.
Fast forward to 2006 and 84% of the high-cost loans made were originated by non-CRA lenders. That includes 83 percent of high-cost loans to low- and moderate-income individuals. In fact, according to the Fed, non-CRA lenders were twice as likely as CRA lenders to issue subprime loans to vulnerable borrowers. Furthermore, the Fed also reports that responsible mortgages made by CRA lenders have about the same low rate of foreclosure as other traditional mortgages.
A couple more facts and I'll allow you to wallow in your lies.
In 2006, only one of the top 25 subprime lenders was a CRA institution. And the vast majority of the top 20 issuers of risky interest only and option ARM loans were not CRA affiliated lenders.
You may now ignore what I wrote and go back to blaming this mess on everyone and everything except for the failed conservative leadership who had 6 unencumbered years to do something about this very foreseeable housing bubble. Take some dang responsibility for you proud conservative failures.
whenhesitsaroundthehousehesitsaroundthehouse,
Here's is some visual refutation of what you replied:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
If you want to dig deeper, you will see this is not about racism. Rather it is about making private business, the banks or insurance companies to do what the government tells them or they are out of business. These were loans that would not have been given because of business not race, not because they could pay but because it was a highly probably they couldn't. With the threat of regulation, legal suits and the government suing you into oblivion without restraint, the banks had to do this.
Everything about the CRA was about making the private sector take over the cost of rebuilding the inner cities. Clinton put the CRA on steroids and involved extraordinary levels of government backing to the private sector. Reno, threatened legal action, no bank was immune.
When, republicans tried to prevent the meltdown, like you the democrats cried racism to get them to back down and not look at what Raines and others were doing to line their own pockets but also give dems access to the lobbying coffers of fannie mae and freddie mac.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
This is not about race, it is about government going awry and letting the same people who put us in this mess, take charge of the recovery.
I knew you would gloss over the fact that CRA provided safe environments for FDIC member banks to loan to low income borrowers. Partisan brains have a tendency to do that. On the bright side, you certainly have some wonderful propaganda films to share. Like I'm going to swallow all that footage outside its full context aided by that revisionist narrative. Like one Republican reformer is indicative of the entire corporate conservative ruling elect. Coincidentally, that Baker guy went on to concede inevitable electoral defeat and went to work for the same people he used to regulate. No appearance of imrorpriety in that. BTW. What radical conservative think tank is footing the bill for the nakedemporer?
My, my. You sure protest vociferously to any whiff of racism. That's fine. It's good you're sensitive to race.... guess that means you do blame the lower class, instead of the predatory lenders who willfully indulged in the kind of risky behavior even a prostitute would avoid.
It should be obvious to you that the CRA is about full equality, however, it's amusing that the trite conservative thinker sees this through his punishment lens. As if enabling broad prosperity through federally insured banks is somehow punishment to the private sector. Such vulgar corporate Marxism.
Privatize the profit and socialize the cost. Go GOP!
What percent of mortgage loans were made through the CRA? What percent of those loans are failing?
Back,
I would like to make a small point. Lots of people still buy American cars and many are of great quality although some are not. (GM slipped to #2 this year behind Toyota.) That is not what is ailing them. The problem lies with their fixed cost overhead and retirement pay out makes the cost of their cars much higher than the competition. (I understand the reasons for this, but that is another discussion.) That plus the credit squeeze and a recession have created a very soft market for new cars and put them temprorarily in an unprofitable situation. Paying those fixed costs I mentioned above has eaten into their cash reserves so much so that right now there isn't any left.
I believe the American auto industry will revive if they can hold on.
The comment about GM should have read: (GM slipped to #2 this year in total car sales, behind Toyota.)
Unbelievable.
What is wrong with you righties? Have you nothing constructive to say? How did you get to the point that you elevated believing your own bs to an art form?
It's no wonder you guys are such a tiny minority not to be taken seriously. Contribute an idea that actually works.
"The economy wouldn't collapse, that is media BS and is a complete fabrication of the truth."
The economy IS collapsing, at a rate of one half-million jobs a month. Wages drive demand and form the backbone of a capitalist economy.
"Democrats like Chris Dodd vehemently denied that there was anything wrong."
Republicans like president Bush championed it.
The banks were being forced to give loans to people that wouldn't be able to pay them back. Obviously then the bad loans started to come in and amazingly the banks are failing.
You need a 'back to basics' class.
Banks made loans/mortgages to folks, with zero to very little down payment required and zero to very little income documentation. The only gun held to the banks head, was their own greed. The banks made plenty of money off of the poor loans.
THAT is the reason banks are in the shape they're in. Banks CHOOSE to give loans to folks WITHOUT any due diligence.
No one forced the bank to do a d*mn thing!
The Republicans saw the banking/housing industry beginning to collapse 3 years ago, yet Democrats like Chris Dodd vehemently denied that there was anything wrong.
Did the Republicans need Chris Dodd's permission BEFORE they could do something about the problem? Did the Republican Congress and the Republican president need Barney Franks approval BEFORE the acted on the mortgage crisis in 2005?
For 6 of the last 8 years, Republicans controlled government. If they saw something wrong, they should have fixed it! Not a single Democrats had ANYTHING to do with the fact that Republicans CHOOSE to do NOTHING!
easilyfooled,
No, I think you get immediate impact by lowering capital gains taxes, Rush says illiminate for 1 year to pump money into the stock market. As teh stock market goes up, you have recovered wealth and without tax, encourage investiment in the economy. By lowering corporate tax rates, again the incentive is there for investors to get on board and pour money into good companies, ones that will provide a good return, not ones who just give themselves big bonuses.
As far as the CBO report, many on the left are saying this is a stimulus bill and there is little stimulus effect by saying you can spend all this money. The report shows this in the table on, YES, page 3. Discretionary spending is spending left up to the legislators, ie pork. This includes building bridges to nowhere, put sod on the mall, building a mall in a representative's district, anything that Senator Byrd can erect in WV, and so on. That is pork and doesn't start to get spent 2010 and 2011. Tax cuts are immediate in their effect. Even if 'rebate' checks were given to taxpayers, you would get more immediate relief.
And from the CBO report, on page 4 it gives a little of the historical perspective:
●
Purchases of goods and services, either directly by the federal government or
indirectly in the form of grants to state and local governments. Many of those
involve construction or investment activity that would take several years to
complete.
In estimating outlays for that third category, CBO expects that the rate of spending in
2009 for many programs funded in H.R. 1 would be considerably slower than historical
rates of spending for a full year of funding because the bill would be enacted almost
halfway into the fiscal year. Thus, it would not be appropriate in most cases to use the
full-year rates that CBO typically employs for appropriations enacted near the start of
fiscal year. Moreover, under H.R. 1, some programs would receive funding that is
significantly above (double, triple, or more) the amounts provided for existing or similar
programs in recent years. Frequently in the past, in all types of federal programs, a
noticeable lag has occurred between sharp increases in budget authority and the resulting
increases in outlays. Based on such experiences, CBO expects that federal agencies,
along with states and other recipients of that funding, would find it difficult to properly
manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to expend the added
funds as quickly as they expend the resources provided for their ongoing programs.
Lags in spending stem in part from the need to draft plans, solicit bids, enter into
contracts, and conduct regulatory or environmental reviews. Spending can be further
delayed because some activities are by their nature seasonal. For example, major school
repairs are generally scheduled during the summer to avoid disrupting classes, and
construction and highway work are difficult to carry out during the winter months in
many parts of the country.
Brand new programs pose additional challenges. Developing procedures and criteria,
issuing the necessary regulations, and reviewing plans and proposals would make
distributing money quickly even more difficult—as can be seen, for example, in the lack
of any disbursements to date under the loan programs established for automakers last
summer to invest in producing energy-efficient vehicles. Throughout the federal
government, spending for new programs has frequently been slower than expected and
rarely been faster.
PompousPollyanna,
Maybe you can identify for us the part of this recession that was caused by high capital gains taxes....
It doesn't matter if we lower the capital gains tax. If the stock market is going in the right direction, people will invest.
Again, this doesn't matter. If a company is turning a profit, people will invest.
The lowered capital gains taxes and tax rates for the upper tiers under Bush's tax plan have not produced investment in the American economy of any lasting impact. Jobs in this country are getting worse and worse, wages have remained stagnant for the decade. What evidence is there that lowering them even further would change that?
Here are how the democrats fought against regulations of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Remember the effort by fannie mae to lobby members of congress with $$$$$$ most of which went to Dems?
And shame on the republicans for backing down because of the threat of doing a 'lynching' Harold Raines, a black man but more importantly a democrat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
To lay the blame entirely on Democrats is to rewrite history.
Bush championed "The Ownership Society."
Bush took every opportunity to take credit for the "ownership" society so who am I to argue?
There is plenty of blame to go around, but as you say Pete, it's more revisionist history to blame just the Democrats only.
Dear proud conservative, without a bolt, you're just a
(Bolt meaning an anchor, like to the facts, not spin.)
A while back you stated that my playful changing and alteration of your name was highly offensive. You asked me to desist, which I obliged.
Now here comes you with a picture of me as a 'wingnut' or someting without an anchor? Tsk, tsk!
Well I guess all I have to say is that this morning my devotions included a reading in Matthew 5. Particularly, consider verses 38-40.
:) God's peace!
No better way to turn the other cheek than with a wingnut!
Now I didn't say that changing the names was "highly offensive" although someone else might have. I just found it sort of Bush-like, in that he seemed to want to assign everyone nick names as a sort of "putting them in their place" kind of way. I recall suggesting that if you really wanted a serious discussion, the name calling wasn't helpful.
Thanks for the scripture. Always enlightening.
No puting in your place wanted here, just fun. Especially with those who have taken themselves so seriously.
I like serious discussions but come on, a little levity, levities the whole loaf?! (More scripture references.)
I always enjoy the debate but understand that no soul was ever saved by correct politics. My approach has always been to be direct, maybe a tad irreverent but never enough to keep me from the joking. So henceforth in honor of my German heritage, Mary neunundfünfzig it shall be!
Denn alles Fleisch, es ist wie Gras
und alle Herlichkeit des Menschen wie des Grases Blumen. Das Gras ist verdorret und die Blume abgefallen. So seid nun geduldig, libe Bruder, bis auf die Zukunft des Herrn. Siche, ein Ackermann wartet auf die kostliche Frucht der Erde und ist geduldig daruber, bis er empfahe den Morgentregen und Abendegren. So seid geduldig."