State of te Union on Now 8:00PM

[Scorpio]

If anybody cares.

[Racer]

Thats not the president, somebody's playing a prank!!!!!!:rofl::happy3:

[FlipSideUp]

If anybody cares.

Democratic Response on now..... not that anybody cares, hehehe... :keke:

[Candy]

I watched the whole thing and all i heard was "i phucked u america, good night":angry7:

[hotcknstrips]

I stopped caring what that &%^*(&^ has to say long ago.

[txferrari]

Didn't watch it. I was a Bush supporter, but now...man I think its just time to move on really. Guy has been saying the same stuff for the past 5 years it seems like. Oh well. Out with the old, in with the new.

R Paul FTW!!!!!!!!!

[Fuzzy018]

Don;t care

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Just curious why there was so much focus on Iraq and Iran when there are some pretty substantial problems here on the home front? The recent successes in Iraq are fine to make mention of but it is not a categorical overall success yet and we need to stop focusing on these limited successes because it breeds complacency- the same problem we had when he hopped up on the naval vessel proclaiming a mission completed. Oh well, TxFerr had it about right...he's been saying the same sh!t for years in the State of the Union address. My other problem is that he was suggesting that things should get done that anyone with any knowledge of our Congress knows will not have been completed at the close of his presidency. Probably should have spent more time talking about those things that can actually be passed within his limited time left in office.

[Candy]

My other problem is that he was suggesting that things should get done that anyone with any knowledge of our Congress knows will not have been completed at the close of his presidency. Probably should have spent more time talking about those things that can actually be passed within his limited time left in office.

The fact of the matter is this final address was nothing more than a pretty wrapping on a shitty gift the dumb asses that voted for him the 1st and 2nd time gave us.

All the tax cuts to stimulate the economy and budgeting bullsh!t he was talking about are only bandaids that the next mo fo is gonna have 2 attempt 2 use 2 bail us outta of the DEBT that BUSH has PUT US IN.

He didn't talk about things that COULD be fixed, cause he has NO INTENTIONS on correcting not ONE problem he is leaving behind, and he's leaving behind a SHITLOAD! And that dope fiend smirk he had on his face said it all.

We got phucked! :angry7:

[R6Spartan]

I watched the whole thing and all i heard was "i phucked u america, good night":angry7:


LOL wow i was thinking the samething

[Candy]

LOL wow i was thinking the samething

Everyone knew it and saw it but it's funny no one has said that! I'm gonna definately watch Bill Maher friday and hope he doesnt let me down

[houseofpaint]

kybUV9pIkXQ

:D

[R6Spartan]

Everyone knew it and saw it but it's funny no one has said that! I'm gonna definately watch Bill Maher friday and hope he doesnt let me down

Well the truth is that all the Bushes have ****ed this country....his father was a POS and just like father and son, the same story, Just war.

[bigzona]

All the tax cuts to stimulate the economy and budgeting bullsh!t he was talking about are only bandaids that the next mo fo is gonna have 2 attempt 2 use 2 bail us outta of the DEBT that BUSH has PUT US IN.

:angry7:

Well said......Bandaid. Although the contracting economy we're currently experiencing can't be blamed on Bush, the predatory lending practices and less then honest applicants for mortgages are the cause.

Bottom Line: We're going into recession, the effectiveness of this stimulus package will simply determine if its a mild one or a deep one.

[Candy]

:D

Well the truth is that all the Bushes have ****ed this country....his father was a POS and just like father and son, the same story, Just war.


2 funny!! :rofl::rofl:

ur right on that, it's sad 2 c america gettin played like a funky piano.

i feel sorry for the next elected pres cause no matter how hard they try, they are not gonna be able 2 turn us around :angry7:

[Candy]

Well said......Bandaid. Although the contracting economy we're currently experiencing can't be blamed on Bush, the predatory lending practices and less then honest applicants for mortgages are the cause.

Bottom Line: We're going into recession, the effectiveness of this stimulus package will simply determine if its a mild one or a deep one.

honestly i don't see the stimuli having any effect on the recession we WILL be in by next quarter. I think it might help us rebound a little, but recession is gonna happen...it has happened.

and not 2 chew words but the contracting economy can be blamed on no one BUT Bush.

[houseofpaint]

Well said......Bandaid. Although the contracting economy we're currently experiencing can't be blamed on Bush, the predatory lending practices and less then honest applicants for mortgages are the cause.

Bottom Line: We're going into recession, the effectiveness of this stimulus package will simply determine if its a mild one or a deep one.

i'm gonna have to agree with bigzona on this one. :nod:

[Meaner-n-u]

All presidents are mearly figure-heads. It's the idiots in Congress and the Senate who have messed this country up. Local elections are MORE IMPORTANT, and less attended. Once people figure this out there will be real change in Washington and not until... No matter who sits in the White House.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

All presidents are mearly figure-heads. It's the idiots in Congress and the Senate who have messed this country up. Local elections are MORE IMPORTANT, and less attended. Once people figure this out there will be real change in Washington and not until... No matter who sits in the White House.

Well with veto and other relative powers, I wouldn't characterize the presidency as a figurehead position- this characterization can however be applied to the governorship of Texas- but I definitely agree that local government is just as important yet more often ignored. The Congress does have more of an effect on something like the economy than does the President. I'd have to go with BigZona though on the idea of lenders being a major factor in our current economic situation and that responsibility is equally, if not exceedingly, in the hands of Congress for not addressing the problem ahead of time. Term limits for the fuggers would be nice...

[Meaner-n-u]

Well with veto and other relative powers, I wouldn't characterize the presidency as a figurehead position- this characterization can however be applied to the governorship of Texas- but I definitely agree that local government is just as important yet more often ignored. The Congress does have more of an effect on something like the economy than does the President. I'd have to go with BigZona though on the idea of lenders being a major factor in our current economic situation and that responsibility is equally, if not exceedingly, in the hands of Congress for not addressing the problem ahead of time. Term limits for the fuggers would be nice...

On this - We can Agree! :nod:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

On this - We can Agree! :nod:

Yeah I'm sick of seeing these guys in office- essentially Washington- for 20+ years expecting us to believe they are still aware of the problems associated with their home states and are somehow not more concerned with the interests' of lobbyists' and other such entities. 2 terms for Senators and 4 for House members....

[Meaner-n-u]

Yeah I'm sick of seeing these guys in office- essentially Washington- for 20+ years expecting us to believe they are still aware of the problems associated with their home states and are somehow not more concerned with the interests' of lobbyists' and other such entities. 2 terms for Senators and 4 for House members....

:thumb:

And no more of this "Pension for Life" and "not subject to taxes" after 1 term mess either!

[Candy]

i'm with ya on that one cajun

[bigzona]

and not 2 chew words but the contracting economy can be blamed on no one BUT Bush.

Please expand further on this perspective.


My Perspective:

Bush has screwed up on so many levels with so much it isn't funny. However, I'm not going to give him credit for having the know-how to make the assumptions/decisions made to land our economy in the mess we're in.

Points to consider:

1) We're a consumer driven economy that thrive on credit. To maintain strong economic growth, the consumer has to remain strong financially; which in most cases means access to credit.

2) Since the sub prime loans came into play, it exponentially increased the amount of home owners in the U.S, hence, more people with access to credit (home equity). As all this unfolds, the U.S economy stays on the expanding side of the business cycle for alot longer than in the past.

3) Government doesn't probe much into this product (sub prime loans), because its an obvious driver for the economy so heaven forbid they check into it.

4) Wall street geniuses see an opportunity to create yet another security from this stream of cash flow (mortgage payments). So they start approaching mortgage companies and banks to purchase these loans (at the present value of course), then they securitize them and start trading them.

5) Mortgage/Lending companies and banks realize they no longer have to carry the risk on their books, so they aren't as strict on their background checks and credit checks anymore (cause they're going to sell them to Wall Street firms anyway right)

6) Consumers realize that they don't have to wait years to come up with 20% of their loan value anymore and establish good credit, and also they know the institutions that aren't doing background checks. So they start to lie and BS on apps.

7) As a number of different global economic indicators start pointing to inflationary pressures interest rates are raised to counter these pressures. Since these sub-prime loans are also ARMS (adjustable rate mortgages), they begin to adjust upward, in some cases tripling peoples mortgage payments. As a result we see increased foreclosures and a falling housing market.

FALLING HOUSING MARKET= LESS CREDIT= SLOWING ECONOMY

This is the simple version.:D

[Whorenet]

I watched the whole thing and all i heard was "i phucked u america, good night":angry7:

can ya reaalllly blame the guy? i dont even know if he'll be welcome back to texas when he gets out of office.....that fool is going to need more SS then any former president in history.....

and this is comming from a republican:keke:

[Candy]

i guess u guys don't see the correlation between a slowing economy and the initial tax cuts this dickhead declared that stimulated the DEFICIT of our country rather than the rebound of our economy back in '01.

"The On-Budget surplus in 2000 was $86 billion. A combination of tax cuts and spending initiatives he has enacted added over $2.3 trillion to the national debt since then. The annual On-Budget deficit for 2006 was $434 billion. Most debt was accumulated as a result of tax cuts and increased national security spending. According to economists Richard Kogan and Matt Fiedler, "the largest costs — $1.2 trillion over six years — resulted from the tax cuts enacted since the start of 2001. Increased spending for defense, international affairs, and homeland security — primarily for prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — also was quite costly, amounting to almost $800 billion to date. Together, tax cuts and the spending increases for these security programs account for 84 percent of the increases in debt racked up by Congress and the President over this period.""

The only people who pay for these increased spendings r the american people thru their cost of living and the great mortgage loan crisis is simply an after shock of an already abused economic status. I agree with u all the mortgage crisis is a huge declining situation 2 our economy, but then again what came 1st the chicken or the egg!

Here's a rather old but good read on the subject: http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf

[bigzona]

i guess u guys don't see the correlation between a slowing economy and the initial tax cuts this dickhead declared that stimulated the DEFICIT of our country rather than the rebound of our economy back in '01.

"The On-Budget surplus in 2000 was $86 billion. A combination of tax cuts and spending initiatives he has enacted added over $2.3 trillion to the national debt since then. The annual On-Budget deficit for 2006 was $434 billion. Most debt was accumulated as a result of tax cuts and increased national security spending. According to economists Richard Kogan and Matt Fiedler, "the largest costs — $1.2 trillion over six years — resulted from the tax cuts enacted since the start of 2001. Increased spending for defense, international affairs, and homeland security — primarily for prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — also was quite costly, amounting to almost $800 billion to date. Together, tax cuts and the spending increases for these security programs account for 84 percent of the increases in debt racked up by Congress and the President over this period.""

The only people who pay for these increased spendings r the american people thru their cost of living and the great mortgage loan crisis is simply an after shock of an already abused economic status. I agree with u all the mortgage crisis is a huge declining situation 2 our economy, but then again what came 1st the chicken or the egg!

Here's a rather old but good read on the subject: http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf

I agree with you on all that you are saying. My only point is that Bush didn't single handedly slow down our economy with his policies. In addition, keep in mind that the US is the largest consumer nation in the World. As a result, more times than not, we will be running a deficit in our Balance of Trade. Without getting too technical, the BOT is determined by exports - imports= BOT. So think about the clothes you wear, the cars you buy, in fact the bikes you ride........not American made, all imports. As a result of our immense capacity to consume, our imports more times than not, will out weigh our exports, resulting in a deficit. In fact, its times like these when our trade balance moves more towards a surplus; with a weak dollar.


So yes, Bush's policies got us in a mess. However, he is certainly not the sole or primary cause. He's simply one of many components contributing to a detriorating economic environment.


*I'm scaring myself. I almost sound like I'm defending him, but I'm not.

[Candy]

I agree he didn't do it on his own, but he absolutely pushed it farther than it shoulda went and quicker with his irresponsible spending, and doing it all with a big "phuck u" at the end.

I wish i could find that clip of LETHAL WEAPON 4 where Mel Gipson and Danny Glover crash in on the Triad money exchange 2 save the 4 fathers and show that the money is counterfeit. Mel's line after he told the gov't dudes what was up, is all Bush shoulda said last night....."Iiiii PHUCKED YA, I Phucked Ya....and it's was BEAUUTIFUL!"

[bigzona]

:rofl::rofl: I remember that part of the movie

[logan5]

It's time for a Libertarian revolution!!!! Who's with me?!?!?!?!?!?! ... umm... anyone?..... hello? ......

yeah well .... this is the same shit Republicans or Democrats, they'll take it to us in the end because we let them. Don't fool yourself into thinking that a Democrat would be or could be any better.

[rideForrestride]

I watched it. I liked it. Unlike what most people seem to think these days, I believe he really cares about our country and us the people. Sadly, I think too many people listen to the media to get their information and beliefs rather than listening and seeing for themselves what's really going on. I don't agree with everything that he's done, but he has done some good things for the country. But, you won't hear anything positive coming from the media.

[rideForrestride]

and not 2 chew words but the contracting economy can be blamed on no one BUT Bush.

The fact that people spend more money than they make and take out risky loans to buy things they can't afford is Bush's fault? Wow.

[rideForrestride]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Purple"]

The only people who pay for these increased spendings r the american people thru their cost of living and the great mortgage loan crisis is simply an after shock of an already abused economic status. [/URL]

Agreed. An abused economy by Americans spending more money then they make. Granted tax cuts just delayed the process. I guess he should've left it alone and let it come a lot quicker. Wait, then everyone would be complaining about him not doing anything about it.

[rideForrestride]

and not 2 chew words but the contracting economy can be blamed on no one BUT Bush.



I agree he didn't do it on his own, but he absolutely pushed it farther than it shoulda went and quicker with his irresponsible spending, and doing it all with a big "phuck u" at the end.



Well, which is it? The economy can be blamed on no one BUT Bush, or you agree that he didn't do it on his own? I'm confused.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Agreed. An abused economy by Americans spending more money then they make. Granted tax cuts just delayed the process. I guess he should've left it alone and let it come a lot quicker. Wait, then everyone would be complaining about him not doing anything about it.

Just curious who you think significantly benefited from the aforementioned tax cuts? As far as I know, those tax cuts only significantly benefited those with the largest pocket books. Being that an economy is stimulated by consumer spending and being that those who actually already have great deals of money probably already have most of what they want- how is it that they would apply the above stated tax cuts back to the economy? They wouldn't...said money goes to some sort of high yield savings account earning them more money and interest. The tax cuts that Bush offered did nothing for the US economy...

[rideForrestride]

Just curious who you think significantly benefited from the aforementioned tax cuts? As far as I know, those tax cuts only significantly benefited those with the largest pocket books. Being that an economy is stimulated by consumer spending and being that those who actually already have great deals of money probably already have most of what they want- how is it that they would apply the above stated tax cuts back to the economy? They wouldn't...said money goes to some sort of high yield savings account earning them more money and interest. The tax cuts that Bush offered did nothing for the US economy...

Yeah, SOME rich people may benefit more because they have more to benefit from but it doesn't mean no others besides the rich benefit from it. Like I said, I don't agree with everything that's gone on but strickly blaming Bush for the economy and all of this country's problems is bull. It's a fact that people save less now than ever before in US history, and more people now spend more money than they make.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Yeah, SOME rich people may benefit more because they have more to benefit from but it doesn't mean no others besides the rich benefit from it. Like I said, I don't agree with everything that's gone on but strickly blaming Bush for the economy and all of this country's problems is bull. It's a fact that people save less now than ever before in US history, and more people now spend more money than they make.

Then I think we may be more in agreement than previously though...:thumb:

1) Bush isn't wholly responsible for the economic fallout, neither is any other president. They are not directly influential to the economy.

2) The war has caused massive deficits and therefore IS a factor to the current economic situation but not the sole factor

3) Sub-prime lending IS major reason we are having the problems we are having today and actually was outside of Bush's realm of control. Blame that on the mortgage companies, brokers and financial institutions

4) The war in Iraq was INDEPENDENT of the war on terrorism as Saddam though a dictator WAS NOT an Islamic Terrorist NOR did he have anything to do with 9/11. For the above stated reasons, as well as others, it was the wrong war (I've said it from the beginning and will continue to do so). Note: Afghanistan was part of the war on terrorism and should have for that reason been better funded and used as the "focal point" of the war. Sadly many have forgotten about it- including the politicians because they have failed to pay proper attention and the Taliban have since increased their terrorist activities in the area.

5) Bush has done good things but the question I pose is: Does the good outweigh the bad? If not, then it was a negative (arguably failed) presidency.

He isn't solely to blame for our current economic situation, but lets not sugar coat the fact that he has effectuated more fcuk ups than successes overall....



Link (http://www.motohouston.com/forums/showpost.php?p=989721&postcount=26)

[FlipSideUp]

Just wondering how old some of you Bush haters are, especially those of you who feel he "f*cked the economy"? Were you voters 8 years ago, or even had a job. I'm sure some of you did, but the fact is the economy was on a verge of a Recession when he took office, just like it is right now. Bush turned that recession around, how conveniently we forget.

So I guess all of you haters want a Clinton back in Office, huh? :gesture:

All I know, is that my business has boomed in the last 8 years, and many, many people have jobs. Many people have homes too. Much more than would have been possible. Whether or not those families chose to buy a house they could afford or not, is their own problem and fault, not the fault of the Government. Because even though they said they could "afford" a 1/2 Million dollar home, doesn't mean it was smart to buy one because of "low interest".

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Just wondering how old some of you Bush haters are, especially those of you who feel he "f*cked the economy"? Were you voters 8 years ago, or even had a job. I'm sure some of you did, but the fact is the economy was on a verge of a Recession when he took office, just like it is right now. Bush turned that recession around, how conveniently we forget.

So I guess all of you haters want a Clinton back in Office, huh? :gesture:

All I know, is that my business has boomed in the last 8 years, and many, many people have jobs. Many people have homes too. Much more than would have been possible. Whether or not those families chose to buy a house they could afford or not, is their own problem and fault, not the fault of the Government. Because even though they said they could "afford" a 1/2 Million dollar home, doesn't mean it was smart to buy one because of "low interest".

Not sure who you are referring to specifically (we;; I have an idea) but I'll answer since I am a Bush disliker...24 years old, did vote 8 years ago and understand fully that the Pres has very, very little to do with the overall direction of the economy. So no, Bush did not "turn that recession around". Sure many, many people have jobs...sadly it's many, many less than were employed a few years ago.

From the end of the 2001 recession through December, 2007, the U.S. economy added just 7 million jobs. Even taking into account that this expansion has been shorter than the 1990s one, the growth rate of jobs was about half as fast this decade.

Bush is so damn fiscally irresponsible it is ridiculous. Here's a snippet from today's Wallstreet Journal regarding Bush's 2009 Budget: it could add $280 billion to cumulative deficits over the next five years.- and this is compounded on the already retarded deficit he's racked up over the years. Regardless of what you may think of Clinton, his Presidency wasn't nearly as impugned or questioned as was/is Bush's. Most of the ammunition people have against Clinton is his getting head in the Oval Office. If that's the worst my President is doing then I would be pretty damn content being that such an activity doesn't directly effect me or anyone I know negatively. Whatever though, each his own...if under Bush's tenure, your business has boomed then great for you. His Presidency was a blessing- to you. Consequently for him, his presidency will not be judged on the basis of what he did for a select few but rather, what effect his Presidency had on the nation- negative or positive. I'm not thinking it will be regarded as any overall success. As I suggested before, his administration has resulted in more fcuk ups than successes overall.