So What Do You Think About Romney's Taxes Being Stolen

[zwhit]

being a shitty president is legal too. being a lying d-bag who doesn't care about his country is also legal.

"it's legal" is a worthless defense when you're talking about a candidate for president, the ultimate PUBLIC servant

Why would anyone pay more than they're required in taxes? That's the ONLY defense needed.

 

[Headholio]

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

Bill Clinton - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME

A few comments even though I don't have time to get to into it right now:

-Your articles claim Clinton did "stuff" but not specifically anything about no-doc loans which was the topic. I think no-doc loans are unrelated to what is claimed in you articles.

I already acknowldeged that repeal of Glass - Steagal was wrong. It was signed by Clinton who was too happy to go long with Republicans who pushed for and passed this and other deregulation legislation. So I will agree Clinton did some dumb stuff, which is why we call him the best "republican" President we ever had.

Here is a good article about repubs pushing to deregulate the financial industry during Clinton's reign, particularly Phil Gramm (R) Texas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html?pagewanted=all

The right wing whining about the Community reinvestment act as "the cause" of the meltdown has been thoroughly debunked. The CRA started in 1977, and was supported by all Presidents since then.

The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of the high cost loans - a proxy for subprime loans - had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law. [The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, January 2011]

The fact that Clinton encouraged home ownership by a larger segment of the population makes him no different than Reagan, or Bush Sr, or Jr.

President Bush touted his goal Monday of boosting minority home ownership by 5.5 million before the end of the decade through grants to low-income families and credits to developers.

Bush aims to boost minority home ownership - CNN

If you look into any decent analysis of the cause of the financial meltdown, you will see hundreds of inter-related complex causes that tie together. Cherry picking one thing CLinton did or anyone else is more politics than truth.

But regardless of what Bush did or Reagan or Clinton did, we need to look at policy going forward, and Republicans are still pushing the kind of policy that caused the disaster (and that you are blaming Clinton for).

 

[javaguru]

When you shift the demand curve to the left with artificially low interest rates what do you get?

Here's a hint, people make them with gum.

Why is everyone ignoring me?

 

[ceo]

being a shitty president is legal too. being a lying d-bag who doesn't care about his country is also legal.

"it's legal" is a worthless defense when you're talking about a candidate for president, the ultimate PUBLIC servant

So, you don't take advantage of every deduction you possibly can to lower your tax burden? That's legal!

Do you only take certain deductions, but not all you could? That's legal too!

Do you pay as much in taxes as you possibly can?

Do you refuse to accept returns if you are due them (willingly and gladly overpay)?

Why is, "I took every legal tax deduction I was allowed." a worthless defense for a public servant of any kind? Or anyone else for that matter?

Seems like a perfect defense to me.

"Mr. ceo, you cheated on your taxes!"

"No sir, I took every legal tax deduction I was allowed."

"Oh, yes. I see that now. You certainly did. Case closed then."

Yes, worthless. You're right.

 

[75th]

Too bad Ron Paul isn't the repub candidate.

Millions of 19 year olds who have never taken an econ course feel the same way.

 

[Headholio]

We don't know that Romney's deductions were legal. All we know at this point is that they are secret.

 

[digimon7068]

A few comments even though I don't have time to get to into it right now:

-Your articles claim Clinton did "stuff" but not specifically anything about no-doc loans which was the topic. I think no-doc loans are unrelated to what is claimed in you articles.

I already acknowldeged that repeal of Glass - Steagal was wrong. It was signed by Clinton who was too happy to go long with Republicans who pushed for and passed this and other deregulation legislation. So I will agree Clinton did some dumb stuff, which is why we call him the best "republican" President we ever had.

Here is a good article about repubs pushing to deregulate the financial industry during Clinton's reign, particularly Phil Gramm (R) Texas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html?pagewanted=all

The right wing whining about the Community reinvestment act as "the cause" of the meltdown has been thoroughly debunked. The CRA started in 1977, and was supported by all Presidents since then.



The fact that Clinton encouraged home ownership by a larger segment of the population makes him no different than Reagan, or Bush Sr, or Jr.



Bush aims to boost minority home ownership - CNN

If you look into any decent analysis of the cause of the financial meltdown, you will see hundreds of inter-related complex causes that tie together. Cherry picking one thing CLinton did or anyone else is more politics than truth.

But regardless of what Bush did or Reagan or Clinton did, we need to look at policy going forward, and Republicans are still pushing the kind of policy that caused the disaster (and that you are blaming Clinton for).

gramm-leach-blilely was a bi-partisan cluster fuck...

 

[Headholio]

gramm-leach-blilely was a bi-partisan cluster fuck...

Yes it was. And notice that nothing has changed. If you want to criticize dems, there is a good reason. Even though repubs would probably fight any new regs, the dems aren't even pushing for them.

 

[digimon7068]

Yes it was. And notice that nothing has changed. If you want to criticize dems, there is a good reason. Even though repubs would probably fight any new regs, the dems aren't even pushing for them.

i'm not criticizing dems...i'm voicing my disdain for bill clinton...i hate the fact that everyone looks back on his time in office with this warm, fuzzy, afterglow...the problem with warm, fuzzy, afterglows is that generally you have to get FUCKED before you get to have one...and we did.

 

[75th]

i'm not criticizing dems...i'm voicing my disdain for bill clinton...i hate the fact that everyone looks back on his time in office with this warm, fuzzy, afterglow...the problem with warm, fuzzy, afterglows is that generally you have to get FUCKED before you get to have one...and we did.

Kinda like Reagan in that respect.